No.51 AP" 1 1960 ONTARIO FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT REPORT PROVINCE OF ONTARIO DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS Division of Fish and Wildlife (THESE REPORTS ARE FOR INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION AND NOT FOR PUBLICATION) Hon. J. W. Spooner F - A " MacDougall Minister Deputy Minister TABLE OF CONTENTS No. 51 April, I960 Page Legal Aspects of Wildlife Control In Ontario. - by F. A. Walden 1 Mid-winter Waterfowl Inventory, Ontario, I960. - compiled by G. F. Boyer 7 Summary of Fall, Spring and Summer Goose and Duck Kills In the Moosonee Division, 1959. - by A. Gagnon 11 Report of the 1959 Pheasant Season In the Regulated Townships of the Lake Simcoe Districts. - by J. S. Dorland 14 Mourning Dove Road Counts, Lake Erie District, 195#- 59. - by L. J. Stock 19 Caribou Hunter Interviews In Patricia Central and Patricia West, 1959. - by D. W. Simkin 21 The Desirability of Chemical Evaluation of Lakes In Ontario. - by R. A. Ryder 2$ Winter Fishing For Speckled Trout In the Northern Region During Winter of 195$ • - by N. D. Patrick 34 Creel Census - Gogama District, 1959. - by J. E. Culliton 37 Index to Fish and Wildlife Management Reports, July, 1951 to February, I960, Numbers 1 to 50. 47 (THESE REPORTS ARE FOR INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION AND NOT FOR PUBLICATION) -IL- LEGAL ASPECTS OF WILDLIFE CONTROL IN ONTARIO * by F. A. Walden Abstract The right to hunt and to possess game is of increasing interest on the private lands of southern Ontario. Posses- sion is inherent in ownership of the land, as a matter of common law. Constitutionally, regulation of the use of game is a local interest and is therefore the subject of Provin- cial Legislation. Fisheries are regulated by Federal statute. Control of wildlife is permitted, since the provisions of the Game and Fisheries Act do not apply in defense of pro- perty against any animal other than deer, moose or caribou, or against certain unprotected birds. The Migratory Bird Regulations permit protection of crops from waterfowl. Hunters may not enter standing crops without permission of the owner, and trespass is forbidden if a hunter has been warned. The owner, however, must take legal action against a trespasser. Vandalism is a criminal offence. To reduce concentration of hunters in southern Ontario close to urban centres, a township license must be obtained to hunt fox, rabbits or pheasants, and limited numbers of licenses are issued. The use of pesticides is not regulated in relation to wildlife unless intent to kill wildlife is shown. If pesticides deleterious to fish enter a stream, it is an offense under The Fisheries Act (Canada). Careful use of pesticides is a moral responsibility. Those who dwell upon and work the land bear a relationship to the wildlife resource, rarely equalled in its intimacy, by any other social group. Wildlife is a produce of the land. Its abundance depends upon the fertility of the soil and the way in which the land is used. The importance of wildlife to man has been well known since early times. In its various forms it has provided food, shelter, clothing, industrial products, and recreation, and it has added to the beauty and enjoyment of the landscape, throughout the years. The very existence of wildlife has certain social and legal implications, particularly to the landowner, and some of these will be discussed. A farmer may have a direct and voluntary interest in that he participates in the harvest of fur or game from his land, and indeed, he may act to improve habitat conditions for such creatures. Or his interest may arise involuntarily, due to that of others in the wildlife resources of his farm. The relationship of the farmer or landowner, together with certain rights they may possess is of historical interest. The forest or game laws arose with the Feudal System. Hunting has long been esteemed as a sport for kings and those of high rank who bore arms. When England was conquered by the Normans, the King claimed ownership of all the game whether on private lands or not. This was contrary to the rights enjoyed by landowners in Saxon times. When the Great Charter was obtained from King John, a Forest Charter was obtained as well. A charter comprises a statement of rights of the Paper given at the Conference on Fish and Wildlife Control and Management on Southern Ontario Farms. Ont. Agricultural College, Guelph, January 13, I960. - 2 - people acknowledged by the King. Briefly, the game in the royal forests was reserved for the use of the King, but rights were granted to take game in chase (unenclosed land) or in park (enclosed land). No one could take or kill a beast of chase, namely deer, fox or marten, unless he had a chase or park. Other game, including hares and wild- fowl, was considered to be inferior but could be taken on a franchise granted by the Crown which was called free warren. There was an implication in granting these rights that the game would be protected and prosper since the landowner had their sole and exclusive use on his own land. Subsequent Forest Charters have been granted, the last by Henry VIII. The rights expressed have been the subject in detail of many court cases and are now a matter of common law. The right to possess game is inherent in the ownership of the land and there are many decisions recorded respecting the various circumstances in the possession of game and concerning entry upon private lands to take game. The common law holds in Canada, as it does in England, but traditionally hunting has taken place fully on enclosed and unen- closed lands. However, increasing population, particularly in southern Ontario, is giving rise to new interest in rights of hunting and possessing game. The first law protecting game in Ontario was passed in 1$21. In 1$56, a precedent of constitutional importance was established. An act protecting game, passed by the Legislature, stated that this law was made only for Upper Canada and thus the concept that game regulation is of local interest only, was established for Canada. In contrast, the British North America Act indicated that fisheries are of broad interest, and regulations concerning fish and fishing are federal statutes. Fish and game laws are provided to regulate means and quantity of the harvest and to provide for the continuing supply of wildlife resources through application of sound management principles. The statutes of direct interest here, include The Game and Fisheries Act, R.S.O. 1950, The Fisheries Act (Canada) 1932, The Migratory Birds Convention Act, and all amendments to date together with regulations which have been made pursuant to these acts. In examining the Ontario Came and Fisheries Act as amended year by year from 1895 to the present, it will be seen that changes have been gradual. The principles concerning protection of private property, safety and sportsmanship remain the same" changes in seasons, bag limits and matters of management have developed with increasing knowledge. The traditional concepts derived from the Forest Charter remain, since a farmer or his sons, resident on the land may hunt birds or certain animals, in season on that land, but a royal franchise, better known as a licence, is required to take deer, moose and caribou. The right inherent in ownership of the land is expressed in Section 7 (4) of the Game and Fisheries Act, but royalties, must be paid as prescribed in Section 2$ (l) and the skins of certain animals including beaver, fisher, lynx, marten, mink and otter must be sealed by an officer of the Department of Lands and Forests, as stated in - 3 - Section 30. Further, the farmer or his sons cannot extend or transfer the rights which they enjoy, to some other person (Section 63). The legal aspects of wildlife control are best illustrated by Section 35, which reads as follows; "Nothing in this Act shall apply to any person taking or destroying any animal other than caribou, deer or moose or any bird, other than eagles, ospreys and vultures and any bird protected by this Act or the Migratory Birds Convention Act (Canada), on his own lands, in defence or preservation of his property by any means at any time, but he shall within ten days report the pelts of furbearing animals in respect of which there is a closed season to the Department and he shall not offer them for sale or barter during the closed season except under a licence and any fur dealer possessing the pelts shall hold the licence and forward it to the Department when applying for a licence to ship them out of Ontario or to dress or tan them." This Section recognizes that wildlife may from time to time cause damage to property or crops and the landowner is fully authorized to protect his assets by destroying any animal other than deer, moose or caribou and certain protected birds. He should, however, be prepared to prove that damage was sustained. Members of the deer family, no longer enjoy the status or esteem which accompanies royal prerogative though their popularity with the majority of hunters is not questioned. The reason then, that exception is made lies in the fact that there is no universal open season for hunting deer in Ontario, and to permit the landowner the right to defend his property from the intrusions of deer would lead to many questions as to the propriety of legislation which could readily be abused. Birds protected by the Game and Fisheries Act are enumer- ated in Section 37, and include ruffed grouse, spruce partridge, Hungarian partridge, pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, prairie hen, ptarmigan, quail and wild turkey, if any now exist in Ontario. Of all these, the pheasant is the only one likely to intrude itself in a way damaging to crops or property, but such occasions are sufficiently rare that relief from protection for this bird is not justified. Wanton destruction of hawks and owls as well as eagles, ospreys and vultures is forbidden, but crows, cowbirds, blackbirds, starlings and house sparrows may be destroyed at any time. In exercising the right conferred in Section 35> it is evident that the provisions of Section 46 restricting the hours when guns, rifles or firearms may be used, would not apply. Certain migratory birds, including waterfowl, are known to damage crops upon occasion. Provision for protecting crops is made in The Migratory Bird Regulations. In general, the chief game officer for a province may grant a permit authorizing the killing of migratory birds that are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to crops or other interests in particular areas. - 4 - Wolves and bears are not protected and may be killed at any- time of the year. A bounty is payable by the Province in respect of wolves killed anywhere, and for bears killed in agricultural townships within certain counties. Under the common law, no redress is made by the Crown for damage attributed to game which is the property of the Crown. Some hunters seem to assume that possession of a hunting licence conveys privilege with respect to private lands, although it is stated clearly on the licence that such is not the case. The Game and Fisheries Act deals with this specifically as follows? Section 62 . - (1) No person with any sporting implement or fishing rod or tackle in his possession, shall enter or allow any dog to enter into any growing or standing grain or any other crop, whether of the same kind or not, without the permission of the owner. (la) No person in a party of more than twelve persons shall hunt or attempt to hunt or with any gun or sporting implement enter upon any enclosed or unenclosed land in a county without the written permission of the owner or a person authorized by the owner to give such permission. (4) Nothing in this section limits or in any way affects the remedy at common law of an owner for trespass. S ection 62 . - (2) No person shall hunt or fish or with any gun or sporting implement, fishing rod or tackle in his possession go upon any enclosed or unenclosed land or water after he has had notice not to hunt or fish thereon by the owner either by word of mouth, in writing or by posters or signboards so placed that they may be observed from any point of access to the land. (4) Nothing in this section limits or in any way affects the remedy at common law of an owner for trespass. (5) Every person found contravening subsection 2 may be apprehended without warrant by any peace officer or by the owner of the land on which the contravention takes place, or by the servant of, or any person authorized by, such owner, and be taken forthwith to the nearest justice of the peace to be dealt with according to law. Several principles are noteworthy here. Firstly, there is the complete exclusion of the sportsman from standing crops unless he has permission to enter. Secondly, large parties of hunters are excluded from private lands. Thirdly, and of great importance, is the onus upon the landowner to protect his own land from trespass, and Section 6 (6a) purposely excludes protection of private property from the duties of a Conservation Officer. Finally, the right is given for - 5 - the landowner or his employee to arrest and bring the trespasser before a justice of the peace. In this respect The Game and Fisheries Act provides more strength than the Petty Trespass Act. It is recognized that all hunting and hunters are affected by acts of vandalism and the destruction of livestock and property which is committed by some hunters. These are criminal acts, and the Department of Lands and Forests does not administer the criminal code. It is impossible to deal with crime of this kind by juggling laws dealing primarily with game and fish. All such cases should be reported to the police immediately, whether the offenders are known or not. Our Conservation Officers would like to know of the circumstances too. The record of reported cases of vandalism and destruction shows that these acts are rare, or are all the cases reported? Piany violations of the Criminal Code committed by hunters are not indictable, and it will be found the police encourage the victim to lay the charge, since whoever lays the charge must bear the costs if the case is lost. Farmers are certainly interested in the growing concern expressed by the legal profession that court costs influence justice. Notwithstanding, the Criminal Code and The Game and Fisheries Act provide the means for protecting private property. In Britain and Europe, where there is really tight control over hunting and fishing on private property, there are no Conservation Officers paid from the public account. Public hunting is a public charge, no matter where it takes place. Privately ordered hunting or lack of it, is not. In certain townships, hunting for foxes, rabbits and pheasants is regulated, pursuant to Section 24a of the Act, by means of a township licence. It is essential that the township enter into an agreement with the Department and that they make licences available if the requirement that hunters have a township licence is to be met. An attempt to prevent hunting, by failure to supply licences, would infer that hunting was not restricted in such a township. The obvious great benefit of this licence system is that it limits the concentration of hunters in townships adjacent to the large urban municipalities, and spreads the hunting pressure over a wide area. The use of pesticides is related directly to wildlife management. However, Section 45 of the Game and Fisheries Act, which prohibits the use of poison to take game, would not apply in the event that wildlife was killed by means of what is commonly accepted as a pesticide, unless intent could be shown. One might presume, however, that should protected animals or birds suffer unduly due to excessive or negligent use of pesticides, legislation would be sought to alleviate the condition. Cases are known where rotenone, used in warble fly control, has entered streams during clean-up of equipment. Rotenone is highly poisonous to fish, as well as to other cold-blooded creatures, and speckled trout were lost in the streams, as a result. - 6 - The act of permitting rotenone, or any substance deleterious to fish to enter a stream is an offence under the Fisheries Act. Similarly, where poisonous substances are used under the Pesticides Act, to fumigate mills or other buildings adjacent to streams or lakes, precautions must be taken to prevent their escape, since failure to do so would be contrary to the Fisheries Act and would imply failure to comply with the Regulations under The Pesticide Act. The principles of legal controls respecting wildlife include certain rights which go with ownership of the land respecting use of game. Prevention of trespass is provided for, but the onus of preven- tion is upon the owner of the land. The duty of the Conservation Officer is to promote the public interest, and he is enjoined not to assume responsibility for private property. Any person may defend his land from damage due to game animals, excluding deer, moose, caribou, and from migratory birds with permission. Game birds, protected by the Ontario Game and Fisheries Act are unlikely to do damage, though in the event that pheasants persist in doing damage, the matter should be referred to an officer of the Department of Lands and Forests, Direct action against the birds is illegal. Congestion of pheasant hunters is discouraged by the township licence system. While no legislation is directly related to preventing damage to wildlife by pesticides, there is a moral responsibility to exercise care in their use. Damage to fish through escape of pesticides into public waters is an offence against the Fisheries Act, The Pesticides Act and Regulations provides for broad standards of care in the use of pesticides. I am indebted to Dr. C. H. D. Clarke for his kind assistance in preparation of this paper. The shortcomings and omissions are my own. - 7 - MID-WINTER WATERFOWL INVENTORY, ONTARIO, I960, compiled by G. F. Boyer Abstract The coverage for the January Midwinter Waterfowl Inventory in Ontario was the same as in previous years. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests personnel again aided by taking aerial counts. Adverse flying conditions caused a delay of several days and counts were not completed until January 20. A table showing numbers of the various species seen and the area in which they were found is given. This year's total of 70,844 water- fowl is compared with 64,830 for 1959 and 90,161 for 1958. The coverage was the same as in previous years. Ground counts were made by voluntary co-operators and aerial coverage was obtained by a Beaver Aircraft of the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests with personnel from Kemptville, Tweed and Aylmer Forest Districts taking part. Weather and Water Conditions Poor flying conditions were in part responsible for a delay of several days in obtaining aerial coverage. Unfortunately this delay was further increased by a delay in getting instructions out to the field crews on time. The aerial counts in eastern Ontario were completed on January 19th when visibility was good with a slight overcast. Snow storms in the western part of the province prevented the count from being completed on the 19th, so in this area it was not finished until the following day. In the Kemptville District the only large spaces of open water were at Ivy Lea bridge and Prescott. Elsewhere open water was restricted to a few "Pot holes." The Bay of Quinte was frozen over as were most of the waters of the St. Lawrence River in the Tweed District except the off shore waters off Wolfe Island. On Lake Ontario the off shore waters along the south and south-west end of Prince Edward Co. were mostly open. Most of the ducks in the Tweed District were in the vicinity of Wolfe Island. In the Lake Erie District there was pack ice along the shores of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie and Lake Huron was mostly frozen over as was Lake St. Clair. There was open water at the lake at Rondeau and east of Point Pelee. The Detroit and St. Clair Rivers were mostly open. Areas Covered (a) Aerial 1 (a) St. Lawrence River Howe Island to ten miles east of Cornwall (b) Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River in vicinity of Prince Edward County and Wolfe Island., 2 Lake Ontario Hamilton to Niagara on the Lake; Niagara River; Long Point Port Stanly; Rondeau to Amherstberg; Detroit River (Amherstberg to Lake St. Clair); Lake St. Clair; St. Clair River to Point Edward; Point Edward to Long Road. (b) Ground 3 St o Lawrence between Prescott and Ivy Lea 4 Lake Ontario - Oshawa to Bowmanville 5 Lake Ontario - Toronto Harbour and Lake Shore from Whitby to Bronte; Humber and Don Rivers. 6 Hamilton Harbour, Dundas Marsh and Lake Ontario from Stoney Creek to Bronte. 7 East River Road to 3A mile south of Gait 8 Federal Migratory Bird Sanctuary at Guelph. 9 Grand River from Brantford to Gait. 10 Jack Miner Bird Sanctuary 11 Sarnia Bay, Lake Huron Shore at Point Edward, St. Clair River south to Sombra. and area; The results of the I960 mid-winter inventory by species -p o Eh C^O( v > l AWH'AO-c)-nCVO-0&WHWHOHt!0 ■J- rH U^, \OHCVtO ur\ vO [>- -4 -4- •to o H -40 rH O O CV u-\ o u-\ N O'A H O I I I I rH I -4CM I I I I O I I O O O O CV O O O r-\ |OIC\2UA|||l|||| I I I I | I O -CO £>- u-n _J- III O I I I I I rH I I I I I I II to I I I r^urs I I I I I rH I I I I I I rH rH O o u CD > o o ct! CD Jh r- vO ITN -4 m OvO I I I rHvO I I I OvO I I I I I I I I I I rH rH OJ C^ O "-^ '-^ rH rH I "CO OVtO r-\ I -4 I I ■CC >J-\ I I I I I oo I I I o o rH rH tO UA rH C^- CV \C r-\ r-\ \D ooto r>- in to rH I I I I M K 14 CV r-\ r-\ OO I I I I O O I I I I I I rH I I O I O I I rHvO r-\ o I I I o I O I I ON C\2 C^O cv -4 HO rH O -4 1 CM c^ r-i O CM "CO \0 Lf> ON CM vO CNvO to O I I ^ C^O I till \ <r\ ^ *>s •» <A ^—. CM rH tO>A c^-O O O U"\ IT\ & i i 1 r-\ 1 -4-4- 1 OvO O 1 o to <r\ i | | I en r-\ C^ CM en CV r-\ UA-4" OO C\2 to to 1$ 4 \C> -4cv \D to i i 1 CV 1 m3 1 1 -4" II 1 1 1 O 1 H a g CD CD 9-< CO G CO CD T5 rt t3 CD CO CD hO CD -H o X x -d Ch hD G -H O o o o a) a* ^ CD G G CD Ch CD o 3 ^ ctf >-> CD ct! O T3 -H CD ^ -H a TiPH o -a JD (V x; 3 3 •H IS CO .p CO CX! G rH Cd CO d CD CTO G W 1 G X) £ T3 4J rd ^ cd C ft (D cd (PHOT CD £ cd CD CD h3 G cti ch o ^ tio^jx; >7jtH n -p bD CD bDT3 T( <H cd G rdH 03^3 C nJTl CHCht) O O G CD G O -H &H £ ct! JnrdHcd-HO(l)n10^HO O -H G CD O G O COOmAfflOCriCOtfOOfflOScOWOA^D &H 1 : - 10 - TABLE II - Comparison of I960 Inventory With 19^8 and 1959. Species 1958 1959 15 I960 Whistling Swan 17 Canada Goose 2,800 2,000 4,400 Blue Goose 20 - - Brant - - 3 Mallard 3,229 1,323 1,425 Black Duck 6,247 11,242 5,492 Gadwall - - 1 Ringneck - 200 475 Scaup 18,499 23,081 16,160 Redhead - 713 1,174 Canvasback 27,703 4,513 2,263 Goldeneye 12,854 8,159 8,562 Bufflehead 617 135 859 Old Squaw 10,088 3,102 15,838 Wood Duck 50 25 12 Scoter 30 50 321 King Eider 2 - 2 Green-winged Teal - - 1 Merganser 232 1,520 6,020 Hooded Merganser - - 1 Harlequin 2 4 - Unidentified 7,788 90,161 8,798 64,880 7,718 TOTAL 70,844 - 11 - SUMMARY OF FALL, SPRING AND SUMMER GOOSE AND DUCK KILLS IN THE MOOSONEE DIVISION, 1959 by A, Gagnon Abstract Lands and Forests Officers and RCMP personnel collected data on the kill of geese and ducks from hunters and Indian families in the James Bay area of the Moosonee Division during 1959. Checking stations were estab- lished at the mouth of the Moose River, North Bluff, Fort Albany and Hannah Bay. A total of 1345 hunters killed 17,133 geese and ducks. Waterfowl kills by Indian families during the fall of 195& and spring of 1959 was 31,139. Statistics comparing kills of Blue- Snow and Canada Geese and ducks for the past three years are given. Statistics were taken from the check stations at the mouth of the Moose River, Len Hughes* Camp, Fort Albany, Bill Anderson Fort Albany, James Bay Goose Club at North Bluff, 22 miles along the west coast from Moosonee and Ontario Northland Goose Camp, Hannah Bay, approximately 50 miles east of Moosonee along the east coast; also data collected from the Indian families for their fall, spring and summer kills in Patricia East portion. This year's data were collected similar to last year's. Such as; the hunter's name, address, license number, species and number of kills. Patrol activities and collection of data from the hunters and Indian families at the two check stations were carried out by Lands and Forests personnel. Statistics from the licensed hunting camps were collected by the R.C.M.P. personnel. Lindy Louttit, Ranger and the writer collected data from all the Indian families from Lake River, Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Mopse Factory and Moosonee areas for the fall, spring and summer kills. Data from each individual Indian were sent to Maple and District Office with the annual report. A summary of the kills is included in this report. Sanctuary The Moose River Bird Sanctuary at the mouth of the Moose River which consists of two locations; one part being on Shipsand Island on the west shore and one on the east shore, from the mouth of the Moose River to Partridge Creek. Both pr,rts consist of approxi- mately 3600 acres. The establishment of the sanctuary to improve the - 12 - hunting for the Indians paid off to quite a percentage, especially on the goose kills. Sanctuary was established in January 1955. Number of Kills for the Past Three Years, Moose River Check Station. Fall 1957 195^ 1959 Blue-Snow Geese Canada Geese 124 166 204 Ducks Number of hunters American hunters American hunters 7% 8% 509 944 1034 3504 7521 11557 1567 1329 1452 O.N.R. Hannah Bay Number of hunters American hunters American hunters 90$ 78% 131 95 101 1957 1955 1959 1136 1155 924 31 10 20 565 225 219 James Bay Goose Club Number of hunters American hunters American hunters 40% 40% 85 63 68 1957 1955 1959 562 797 735 10 10 13 113 122 166 Len Hughes, Fort Albany Number of hunters American hunters 50% American hunters 51% 107 97 101 1957 1955 1959 1035 1142 1039 36 11 17 72 51 219 Bo Andreson, Fort Albany 53 41 1955 1959 370 459 5 11 Number of hunters American hunters American hunters 33% 51% "l5 65 A rough estimate on the birds not accounted for, such as eaten in the field, lost, etc. during the goose hunt was approxima- tely 1,000 birds. These have not been included in this report. Weather Weather conditions for the past three years for goose hunting were as follows; Seasons - 1957 fair 1955 good 1959 good Patrols Goose patrols were carried out extensively by the Dept. staff this fall as the R.C.M.P. did not have the help and equipment required as in previous years. - 13 Convictions There were only two charges laid this past fall. Both charges were laid to Treaty Indians, one being gainfully employed. Charges were laid for hunting and having in their possession geese and ducks on the sanctuary. Both parties concerned were found guilty. There were a few minor infractions which were settled in the field. As a whole the hunting regulations were observed by the outside hunters and local people to a degree that satisfied the enforcement staff. Indian Family Waterfowl Kills In Patricia East Portion F or Fall, Spring and Summer Summer and Fall of 1958, Spring of 1959. Moosonee Fort Fall 1104 4278 1128 Albany Spring 2205 1483 670 Attawapiskat Fall Spring 547 2909 5054 2868 2643 564 Fall Spring Total Canada Geese 104 1963 Blue-Snow Geese 1686 1075 Ducks 489 419 8832 16444 5913 31189 C heck Stations and License Camps Total Kill for 1959 Number of Hunters 1345 Canada Geese 265 Blue-Snow Geese 14714 Ducks 2154 TOTAL 17133 GRAND TOTAL 48322 - 14 - REPORT OF THE 1959 PHEASANT SEASON IN THE REGULATED TOWNSHIPS OF THE LAKE SIMCOE DISTRICT by J. S. Dorland Abstract A lengthened open season for pheasants was provided in the 16 Regulated Townships of Lake Simcoe District „ A field check of 1700 hunters revealed a harvest of 7^0 pheasants in 4100 man-hours of hunting for an average of .44 pheasants per hunter. Some 14,540 day-old and poult pheasants had been provided for stocking by the Department of which 1$33 were banded and released in Whitchurch and Pickering Townships. Of the total kill in Whitchurch Township 51 per cent were banded birds. Figures are given to show that costs per banded bird harvested was $14«$2. Hunting pressure as indicated by the purchase of township licences increased by approximately 1700 over the previous year. This year the Regulated Townships in the District experienced their first year of any lengthy open season for pheasants. Of the 16 Regulated Townships, half enjoyed an open season of 16 days and the remainder 10 days. The majority of the hunting was confined to the 10 lower townships where our officers contacted some 1700 hunters who harvested 730 pheasants in some 4100 man-hours of hunting for an average of .44 pheasants per hunter. Few sunny days greeted the hunter with the majority of the days being overcast, cool with occasional drizzle turning into heavy rain. Previous to the open season the Department provided the Regulated Townships with 14*540 day-old and poult pheasants for release within the Townships (see chart #2j . Prior to the release of these pheasants 1833 were leg banded and released in two of the Regulated Townships, Whitchurch and Pickering (see chart #3)» At the close of the open season figures gathered from Township Authorities and Game Commissions show that some 6000 hunters had purchased township licences (see chart #4) an increase over the previous year of approxi- mately 1700 licences. 15 Results of the Open Season, 1959 Number of Regulated Townships checked Number of hunting parties checked Number of parties using dogs ■> . . . Number of hunters checked Number of man-hours hunted Cock birds seen Hen birds seen Cock birds harvested Hen birds harvested Total birds harvested Birds per hunter . ... Man-hours hunted per bird Percentage of banded birds recovered in Whitchurch Percentage of total kill in Whitchurch that was banded For a break-down of figures per township see Chart #1. ooo«*oeo 000090001*00 o o o o © o o r o o o • o rs e t (• a > o D oooae«o«>»eooOft*ooo««« • ••cooeoooc© oooeooooo oocoeeoo o o • o • * O O © O © c * 9 O © O 3 c a o*oooo o o O O ft * « 9 oe©*oooooooo m o o o e«oooooeo«oooooeoooo ooooooo:>eoooo->o<. *> o » * • oooooooeooorjocooooe • oo^oooor. oo-»oooo3ooo 00000©9C«0000* ©oooooooocsoo • OOOOOQOOOOOO ooeocoooo«*>ot ©•o^oeoooooocooo ooooororooooooop O ->nnor>o#0O00«»0« • 099 © • © O 9 o e • O « o • o o a ♦ o ©00 9 c • o • 00 o a o ct o Of* /--no • • o 9 O • O n • a e e 10 700 382 1769 U05 1105 359 529 251 780 • 44 5.1 10.3$ 51$ Remarks Best results to the hunter were obtained in the Townships of East Whitby and King where the average success per hunter was .58 pheasants or one pheasant for four hours of hunting. Close to half of the pheasants shot this year were hens, however, it added little to the harvest per hunter which still remains very poor throughout the District. Nil reports on pheasant harvest were received from the Townships of Adjala, Tecumseth, West Gwillimbury, East Gwillimbury, Albion and Toronto Gore, where it must be concluded that the pheasant density is very small and the areas lightly hunted. The extended season this year, besides spreading the hunting out added very little to the average hunter's bag, although more dogs were in use than in previous years. It must be said however, that the ardent hunter who hunts with a dog seldom comes home without a bird. p o x CO CO X) u •H PQ CD CD CO CO T3 Jh •H pq • P CQ fl Jh cd DC fn CO 1 CD (0 c pu CD 05 X! S Pu U CO CD X5 £ -P h CD C •H CL, 3 CQ DC H co 03 T5 P -P £ o o •H X Eh pq co CO c CD CO o o o CO c CD DC CO o o o n CO CD u -p 3 c O 3 DC DC CO <H u o CD P • C o ps S DC CO CD bO •H C CO P •H bl h CO O 03 CD Q Ph CO cm CD O •H P • $h o 03 S Ph •H CO O Eh to nO ■oo •oo rH cv rH c*n. -4 H o rH -oo H nO H rH rH -4 rH rH rH O -4" o O H £>- cv o -4 o rH ITN. o -4 -oo -oo cv CN H o t>- rH rH CV sO CV nO u> o- -4 o H U> CV rH nO rH nO Lf\ cv rH -4 U"\ O o -oo -4 -co to CV o- rH -oo H CV UA nO Oi rH CV O cn. O c- CV ■oo t*^ nO -4 CV CV r>- u> -4 rH t> -4 nO UT\ u~\ rH 0^ CV -oo -4 LT\ ON vO r>- £> rH t> o UA ro -4 H nC -oo ON CV H rH rH rH Lf\ rH c^\ O nO IT\ ir\ nO O NO -4 ON -4 O c~\ rH rH UA t>- o rH NO ON Cf> nO NO on O sO -4 IA -oo £>- ro ON H o> UA Oi >* CO X p< >, bO o o X c SH o P •H a cs G JC o 03 >> •H *H 03 X 03 O p P5 X XJ CD X o X X) $C bO p 9 J*i ^ p bO bO CD o d •H o Sh •H pS $C rH rH •H x • •H 03 X! 03 •H cd O X 3s w Ph S 5 > W o Eh O ON O UA ■oo £>- ON? -4 ON <r\ CV ir> cv O^ NO ir\ -co UOv ON H NO rH rH ON U^ ON O ("A rH -4 OA ON r<\ NO rH £>- rH -oo CV CN2 -co ro -4 o NO o £>- X) O CD P P c CJ o 03 X Jh rH o o Cm Eh CO X •* T3 o c Ih p o •H •H •H X s X rH <H < O »> c •» S OS iC fn X O CD bO TJ > 2 CD O 03 H o > OS CD O Ih •» bO •> ^ sc >> ro •H u o W PS O •9 * H »* B CD bO •H Jh cti C! • rH O •H >> rH a CO Sh Jh •H <H CD 3 £ O X X O P CO o S c •H •H ■H • O X Ph rH 33 Jh p H o ■* -H ~Eh •> >>£ X Ph X o P T3 •H p CD £ X •H • CO ctf CO X W £ c ^ 3 >> 5 n O CO o c c CD ^S Eh H 03 Eh O O X SH s •» oS O >» 03 03 P3 U XX rH bO 2 P ^H 03 iC X •H Sh •r-3 -H o X 03 X5 X P >-^» S <o •H £ 1 1 >^=* o NO JC H rH •H 1 , rH rH £ 5C CT3 O O - CO CO 03 03 r^ CD NO CO CO 1 £ fC CD CD P CU ft O O O X CO CO CO >> >> CO 03 03 X3 X3 X3 Jh •H Ch Oh X o O X3 h U CD CD CD TJ X X C E S 03 PS PS PQ S a - 17 - CHART #2 - Pheasant Distribution - Lake Simcoe District, 1959 Township TOTAL Day Olds Poults 7000 6100 Adults 200 Total Whitby 700 700 20 1420 East Whitby 900 1000 20 1920 Pickering 1000 1100 20 2120 Markham 500 500 20 1020 Whit church 600 1000 20 1620 Vaughan 1000 1000 20 2020 King 500 900 20 1420 Peel County 1000 1100 20 2120 Adjala - 150 6 156 Tecumseth - 150 6 156 West Gwillimbury 50 150 6 206 East Gwillimbury - 150 12 162 Barrie Sportsmen 350 100 - 450 Stayner Sportsmen 200 - - 200 Miscellaneous - 100 10 110 15300 CHART #3 - Pheasants Banded - In the Regulated Townships, Lake Simcoe District, 1959 « Number Banded 733 1000 100 Number Used LS 1-LS 733 LS 1001-LS 2000 LS 901-LS 1000 Townships Released In Whitchurch Whit church Pickering Total pheasants banded and released - 1633 - id - CHART #4 - T ownship Licences Issued Up To and Including Oct. 31, 1959 Issuers Non-resident 339 Resident Licences Whitby 231 E. Whitby - - Pickering 415 463 Markham 1095 395 Whitchurch 256 232 Vaughan 135 203 King 424 246 Caledon 53 37 Albion 201 42 Chinquacousy 226 130 Toronto Gore , 93 12 Toronto 200 421 E. Gwillimbury 70 92 W. Gwillimbury 72 74 Tecuraseth 159 63 Adjala 34 19 TOTAL 3327 2720 Costs of Planting Banded Pheasants In Whitchurch Township and Cost of a Banded Pheasant Harvested - 1959 Provincial costs of raising and delivering pheasants chicks and poults to township - 800 day-olds @ .43 - $ 334.00 1000 poults @ $1.57 - frl 570*00 TOTAL ^1954.00 Township costs of raising 733 day-old to poults - f 36O.OO Township costs of raising 200 poults to near adults - ^ 176.00 TOTAL I 536.00 Total costs for releasing 1733 banded pheasants - ^2490.00 Total township licences issued to October 31* 1959 - 433 94% of licencee*s hunted pheasants or 459 Hunter success - .74 pheasants Total estimated pheasants harvested - 338 50.1% of recorded harvest were banded birds or - 169 Costs per banded bird harvested - $ 14.32 - 19 - MOURNING DOVE ROAD COUNTS, LAKE ERIE DISTRICT, 1958-59 by L. J. Stock Abstract Detailed statistics are presented of roadside counts of Mourning Doves in Lake Erie District during the past two years. Results showed 22 doves per 100 miles in 1958 compared with 26 per 100 miles in 1959« A summary for the past four years ia given. Mourning Dove Random Road Counts for 1958-59 ar © presented in detail with a condensed summary for the past four years. Please note that the high count for 1956 was due largely to two large flocks in Norfolk County, which accounted for approximately one-half of the total. Statistics for the Mourning Dove Road Counts L ake Erie District, 1958 Number of Doves Seen In Flocks 3 or More Pairs Singl es Total Count 4 Total Miles 25 Doves Per 100 Miles Month No. i No. 4 100 No. i. April 16 May 116 17 256 36 322 47 704 5252 13 June 137 16 350 41 379 43 866 5198 17 July 74 19 184 47 134 34 392 2898 14 August 428 39 388 35 287 26 1103 3845 29 September 902 55 374 23 371 22 1647 4237 39 October 6 13 22 49 17 38 45 309 15 District Totals 1663 11 1578 33 1520 32 4761 21764 22 Pelee Is. July 12 _8 38 28 ^ 64 138 288 48 - 20 - Statistics for the Mourning Dove Road Counts Lake Erie District, 1959 Number of Doves Seen Month April May June July- August September District Totals Pelee Is. July t .. re i -. ~ i - 3 or More No. jo_ No. Pairs Singles 59 8 76 12 173 22 100 12 1^3 47 2 302 176 250 284 76 jo_ No. J_ 67 42 29 33 33 19 1 355 3 59 347 470 132 33 50 59 45 55 34 4 26 29 59 66 Total Count 3 715 611 770 354 391 591 18 1090 32 1664 50 3344 89 Total Miles 34 4406 3116 1826 2832 617 12831 117 Doves Per 100 Miles 9 16 20 42 30 63 26 76 Summary For the Past Four Years Entire District Number of Doves Seen 1956 (Sept. only) 1957 (May-Sept.) 1958 (Apr. -Oct.) 1959 (Apr. -Sept.) Pelee Island (July only) 1957 1958 1959 Doves In Flocks 3 or More Pairs Singles Total Total Per'lOO No. $_ No. j&_ No. JL Count Miles Miles 2852 79 404 11 373 10 3629 5124 70.5 429 29 2 52 34 553 37 i486 8174 18 1663 35 1578 33 1529 32 4761 21764 22 591 18 1090 32 I664 50 3344 12831 26 34 21 20 24 91 55 165 119 139 12 8 38 28 U 64 138 288 48 4 4 26 29 59 66 89 117 76 - 21 - CARIBOU HUNTER INTERVIEWS IN PATRICIA CENTRAL AND PATRICIA WEST, 1959 by D. W. Simkin Abstract In order to obtain much needed information on woodland caribou biology a questionnaire was filled out by Department Officers for every native caribou hunter contacted at the annual spring trappers 9 meetings in 1959. Forty-three caribou hunters killed 141 caribou (75 adult males. 51 adult females, 11 male calves and 4 female calves). If the sex ratio of the kill is indicative of the sex ratio of the herd a possible explanation for the low rate of reproduction in wood- land caribou might be evident. There does not appear to be any selection made on the part of the hunter when he encounters more than one caribou. The bulk of the kill is made in November, December, March and April. It has been well established that the large stags shed their antlers from late November to mid- January. Most hunters agree that most caribou herds are made up of males and females travelling together and the proximity to the rutting season has much to do with herd formation and composition. Most caribou herds confine themselves to little movement during the winter. A definite spring and fall movement has been observed in most areas inhabited by caribou. It appears that caribou are more plentiful now than they have been for 30 or more years throughout Patricia Central and Patricia West. Wolf predation on caribou appears to be very low, however, when a herd is atta- cked, multiple kills may occur. At the annual spring trappers 9 meetings in 1959 a ques- tionnaire was filled out by Department Officers for every native contacted who had shot one or more caribou in the previous year. The purpose of this questionnaire was to collect much needed addi- tional information on woodland caribou biology. This report is an attempt to analyze the questions answered Because of language difficulties and lack of knowledge of certain topics in the questionnaire on the part of some trappers, all questions were not answered on each questionnaire. - 22 - A total of 43 trappers were interviewed hence 43 ques- tionnaires were filled out as completely as possible. Analysis I T otal Caribou Kill By 43 Indian Trappers (a) Forty-three caribou hunters killed 141 caribou. Number of caribou per hunter -3.2$. (b) The sex and age composition of the killed animals was 75 adult males, 51 adult females, 11 male calves, 4 female calves. Overall sex ratio was therefore £6 males ; 55 females or 156 males : 100 females • ■ Adult sex ratio was 75 adult males : 51 adult females or 147 males : 100 females. This disproportionate sex ratio in favour of males if representative of the actual sex ratio of the herd might account for the very slow rate of reproduction in woodland caribou. II Hunter Selection Forty-one hunters answered the questions on selection of animals in the herds. Forty stated that they did not care what they shot and that they made no selection between stags and does or adults and calves. One hunter stated that he tried to shoot the young animals if the herd was small and old animals if the herd was large. (Perhaps he considered this practice a conservation measure). If the hunters were correct in stating that they do not make any selection we should assume that the sex and age ratios of the kill is representative of the herds. Thus there is a very unfavourable sex ratio and reproduction is very low. It is possible, however, that they unconsciously select the larger animals. This would account for the large proportion of adult males and the small proportion of does and calves in the kill. The preponderance of mal^s in the calf kill does suggest that an unbalanced sex ratio might exist. III Temporal Distribution of the Kill in Monthly Periods TABLE I - Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Aug. Total 6 18 22 12 16 23 32 3 2 4 138 - 23 - It is possible that the high proportion of kill in early- winter (Nov. Dec.) and late spring (March, April) is merely an indication of when the hunters are most active on their trap-lines. However, Table II shows that there is an increase in group size from October through to April. It is my feeling that caribou bands tend to disperse either just before or just after calving time and that they remain dispersed until the rut, which is probably in mid October or early November. After that time the rutting groups tend to travel together until the spring when they again disperse. TABLE II - To Show Change In Herd Size Throughout Year & I ts Effect On Hunting. June August October November 1 1 IT / AV. iiiO./ group 1 January 4 4 Av. Mo./ group 1 February 18 15 56 AV. Ao./ group 6 March Av , No group 8 April 12 34 Av. No./ group 8.75 12 834 Av. No./ group 16.54 18 71 Av. No./ group 8.9 32 76 Av . No . / group 7*6 December No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Shot Seen Shot Seen Shot Seen Shot Seen Shot Seen 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 2 1 2 - - 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 7 - - 1 1 3 7 2 30 1 3 - - 1 1 - - 4 5 1 8 m — - — — — 1 1 2 7 — - - - - - 3 15 6 6 - - — - - - 2 2 4 30 — _ - — - — - - 3 12 — — - — — — — - 6 30 - - - - - - - - 6 40 31 145 Av. No./ group 14.5 May No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Shot Seen Shot Seen Shot Seen Shot Seen Shot Seen 3 10 5 104 1 6 2 3 2 2 1 8 1 20-25 2 7 2 9 1 1 1 2 1 7 2 3 4 10 - - 7 14 1 6 2 9 5 10 - - - - 4 40 2 3 1 6 - - - - - - 3 30 1 1 - - - - - - 3 10 3 15 - - — - - - 3 3 2 2 10 5 6 11 - — _ mm _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 3 Av. No./ group 1.5 - 24 - No doubt the larger the herd the greater the chance of making a kill. IV Time of Shedding Antlers Hunters were questioned on this matter to establish whether a winter season for trophy caribou would be feasible. There appears to be some variation as to time of shedding but as a rule the large stags seem to loose their antlers in December and early January. Twenty-eight hunters stated that they start to see stags without antlers in December and January. One hunter stated that he has seen stags without antlers in October and November. One hunter stated that the old and weak carry their antlers until spring. (This of course is characteristic of cervids). Six recordings from stags shot and reported are worth reporting here to verify the above December - January shedding time. i Stag with only one antler, shot on December 22nd. ii Stag with large antlers, shot on January 15th. iii Stag with antlers, shot on November 5th. iv Stag with antlers, shot December 17th. v Stag without antlers, shot December 17th. vi Stag with antlers, shot December 7th. From the above it would appear that a trophy season for caribou where a large number of licences were to be issued would yield more trophies if it were held in November or December. However, freeze-up cannot be expected much before mid December in most years, hence aircraft hunting would be restricted to the period commencing no earlier than December 7th. It is possible that a small season (i.e. few licences (75-100) might yield a sufficient number of trophy heads after mid December to satisfy licence holders. V Herd Composition (a) Nineteen of 22 hunters answering the questionnaire stated that they had often seen herds of males and females mixed. (b) Seven of 13 hunters stated that they see herds of does and » calves. These herds were reported to be from 3-4 to 10-15 in size. Eleven hunters stated that they never see aggregations of does and calves alone. (c) Eleven of 15 hunters reported that they see herds of stags travelling together. These herds are reported to vary in size from 2-3 to 15. One herd of 14 was seen in November. - 25 - As we have no data available on what time of the year most of the observations were made the information is not too useful. However we will attempt to clarify these points the next time the trappers are contacted. I do believe, however, that data of this type will have much value in assisting us to understand the behaviour of this most interesting species. VI Winter Movements Twenty-five trappers answered the questions pertaining to winter travel. Seventeen stated that the caribou did not travel at all during the winter. Eight others stated that they did travel considerably. These reports of winter travel vary from two miles per day to a regular circuit in a 100 mile circle. Obviously these movements will vary considerably from one area to another and further questioning and field work must be done to evaluate the answers given. VII Seasonal Movements Twenty-two of 23 hunters stated that there were definite seasonal movements in the caribou bands which they hunted. Twelve of the 20 stated that the movement was a fall and spring phenomenon. One trapper stated that he believed cold weather restric- ted movements. Two trappers said the herds came together in the fall and spread out in the spring into the muskeg. Michel Hunter, the chief at Winisk, and a very good hunter, said that the coastal caribou move out to the coast in April or March and move back to the timber in December depending on early or late freeze up. One trapper who was on his trap-line last January when we were surveying the area from Fort Severn west to the Manitoba border (where considerable summer sign was seen) said that the caribou had moved out of that summer area over into the timbered area in Manitoba Strangely enough the three hunters who stated there was no seasonal movement of caribou were from Pikangikum. It is possible that the animals in that area do not need to travel far from summer to winter range. (This has been noticed in the Old Caribou Preserve and in the Cliff Lake herds). This spring when interviewing these trappers we will attempt to describe the movements on a map. This might clarify the situation. - 26 - VIII When Were Caribou Most Abundant ? Forty hunters answered this question. Thirty-four said that they are more abundant right now than they have been. Two said 30 years ago, two said 40 years ago and one said simply long ago. Another said they are as abundant now as they were at their peak about 20 years ago. Obviously the natives believe caribou are increasing in numbers. IX Wolf Predation All hunters answered the questions pertaining to wolf predation. Three of the 43 reported seeing a total of six wolf- killed caribou 1, 1, and 4» Apparently wolves prey very little on the caribou herds in the north. S ummary (1) Forty-three caribou hunters were contacted in the spring of 1959 They had killed 143 caribou (75 adult males, 51 adult females, 11 male calves, and 4 female calves. (2) If the sex ratio of the kill is indicative of the sex ratio of the herd a possible explanation for the low rate of reproduc- tion in woodland caribou might be evident. (3) There does not appear to be any selection made on the part of the hunter when he encounters more than one caribou in the bush. It is possible that the hunters unconsciously select larger animals. This would explain the preponderence of males in the kill. (4) The bulk of the kill is made in the months of November and December, and March and April. One possible explanation for this is that it is at this time of the year when trappers are most actively engaged in the field. Another is that at this time of the year caribou exhibit their gregariousness to the greatest degree. (5) It has been well established that the large stags shed their antlers from late November to mid January. (6) Most hunters agree that most caribou herds are made up of males and females travelling together. - 27 - Few herds of does and calves were reported but observa- tions of herds of stags were more common. It is felt that the proximity to rutting season has much to do with herd formation and composition. (7) Apparently most caribou herds confine themselves to little movement during the winter. [&) A definite spring and fall movement has been observed in most areas inhabited by caribou. Further more intensive questioning this summer should reveal the direction and extent of these movements. (9) It appears that caribou are more plentiful now than they have been for 30 or more years throughout Patricia Central and Patricia West. (10) Wolf predation on caribou appears to be very low, however, when a herd is attacked, multiple kills may occur. Acknowledgments The bulk of the data here reported was gathered by Conserva- tion Officers Sayers, Currie, Milko, Stone, and Toews at the spring trappers meetings. They are to be commended for questioning the Indians as thoroughly as they did. £» THE DESIRABILITY OF CHEMICAL EVALUATION OF LAKES IN ONTARIO by R. A, Ryder Abstract It was felt that chemical analyses of waters in Ontario could be utilized to advantage to establish indices of lake productivity. Possible methods and costs for obtaining such indices are discussed,. The application of the chemical analysis of waters as presently success- fully employed by Minnesota could be modified to meet the needs of the Patricia Inventory with only those indices related directly to fish production being retained. Water quality as expressed in terms of total alkalinity, and water fertility, expressed as total phosphorus were believed two of the best indices of lake productivity we have today. Once these indices are established it would be possible to predict pounds per acre sustainable harvest rate of a standing crop of fishes provided four other variables are calculated - lake morphometry, species composition, length of grow- ing season and success of spawning. At a recent meeting of the Patricia Inventory Group, the suggestion was made that chemical analyses be utilized to establish indices of lake productivity in Northern Ontario. Chemical analyses of waters have long been neglected in Ontario, and only rarely have determinations beyond oxygen concentrations and pH been estimated. The value of the latter determination is questionable except that it sometimes serves as an undependable indicator of total alkalinity or shows the possible existence of pollution. In order to better assess the value of chemical water analysis as expressed in terms of lake productivity, the author, together with Messrs. J. M. Fraser and K. H. Loftus, visited Dr. John B. Moyle, Supervisor of the Bureau of Research and Planning of the Minnesota Conservation Department. Dr. Moyle has long been recognized as one of the leaders in applying chemical analyses of waters to the productivity of lakes in terms of fish or waterfowl. It was hoped that his methods as expressed in Moyle (1949) and Moyle (1956) could be condensed and the most suitable devices applied to the Patricia Inventory as found practicable. The principal chemical analyses made in Minnesota, aside from oxygen concentrations, have been total alkalinity, sulphate ion, chloride ion, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen. Total phosphorus - 29 - was sometimes broken down further and evaluated as organic phosphorus and phosphate phosphorus. Total nitrogen was also evaluated for its component parts in terms of ammonia nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, and organic nitrogen. Other elements such as iron and manganese occasionally entered into water analyses, but no corre- lation has yet been drawn up to demonstrate to what extent they affect lake productivity. Water analyses for pH and free carbon dioxide have been discontinued in Minnesota routine lake surveys because of the extreme and rapid fluctuations of both in a brief period of time and in short distances between stations. In order to keep the Patricia Inventory on an economical and practical basis, only those indices related directly to fish production were retained. Analyses for chloride ion and sulphate ion will be omitted because the former cannot be correlated as having any direct effect on the biology of waters, and the latter had little if any value in assessing waters for fish productivity,. Total nitrogen, while useful as an index of fish productivity, was eliminated from the proposed surveys because the general distribution pattern of nitrogen concentrations was similar to those of total phosphorus, and total nitrogen determinations were time consuming and consequently expensive to make. A rough conversion factor of Is 10 can be employed in estimating total nitrogen when total phosphorus is known. This relationship varies, but can be applied over a large number of samples. Application and Methods The application of the chemical analysis of waters as presently employed by Minnesota would be modified to meet the needs of the Patricia Inventory. The Patricias should first be broken down into geological units. To begin, a representative lake in each geological unit is selected, and one-quart water samples taken from the surface of each of these lakes at each two-week interval. It would be desirable if several samples could be taken simultaneously from the epilimnion of larger lakes, (e.g. Big Trout, Beer), at two-week intervals, trying to obtain the samples from different geological and ecological units of the lakes. These water samples should be immediately preserved at the rate of 12.5 ml. of chloroform per quart of water, a label affixed to the outside of the bottle will state the name of the lake, the location of the particular station, and the date the sample was taken. Oxygen determinations will not be made from this water sample, but should be taken from a Kemmerer bottle. The water samples can be analyzed on the spot for total alkalinity, the remainder being shipped to a laboratory for analysis of total phosphorus. At the end of one summer, a minimum standard will have been obtained for assessing the fertility of lakes in each of the geological units. In future years spot analyses taken in other lakes during midsummer, when chemical characteristics are stabilized, will fill in the remaining data needed to draw isobars of chemical fertility and hence, potential biological productivity. To assess individual lakes of their fertility expressed in terms of total alkalinity and total phosphorus, it would be desirable to maintain a series of samples taken once every two weeks during the course of - 30 - the summer following the first stratification after spring overturn, and continuing until the first signs of fall overturn. Lakes which do not stratify should be sampled in accordance with the dynamics of neighbouring stratified lakes to obtain uniformity. Once the mean water quality and fertility of a lake is expressed in parts per million of total alkalinity and total phosphorus, we have established a standard which can be compared with other lakes in the area or which have been previously described in the literature. Correlating the Results In order to be useful, chemical water quality and fertility expressed in terms of total alkalinity and total phosphorus must be correlated with other limitations of biological productivity,. The more important of these are as follows" 1. Chemical fertility. 2. Morphometry of lake basin. 3. Length of growing season. 4. Species composition. 5. Success of reproduction. These five variables can be interrelated to obtain a relative productivity in terms of so many pounds of fish per acre of water. An even more realistic figure, and one that can be used to compare fish productivity on an absolute basis, is the expression of produc- tivity in pounds per acre foot of water. On lakes where an intensive population study has been made, chemical productivity can give an absolute correlation when compared with the standing crop of fish present, and hence, quotas to regulate the fishery can be established on a firmer basis than previously. The morphometry of the lake basin will be arrived at through the use of echo sounders and used as an additional index of fish production (Rounsefel, 19A-6) and (Rawson, 1952) . In general, the relationship between lake morphometry and chemical productivity is cause and effect. Deeper lakes generally possess less littoral zone, have a harder and less soluble substratum, ai.d have less substratum surface area per unit of water. The length of the growing season will certainly affect the productivity of lakes for certain fish species. The growing season can be assessed by a study of the limnology and hydrography of the lake and by a study of annulus formations on fish scales. It is expected that the length of the growing season can be expressed as a coefficient which in turn will modify the value of the chemical fertility. Species composition of any given lake, both qualitative and quantitative, is a necessary item which must be assessed before any prediction as to production can be made, based on chemical fertility. This information is obtained through standardized net sets and a study of catch per unit effort from the same. - 31 - Success of reproduction might be an important factor in limiting fish populations in northern areas, especially if the growing season is short. Commercial fisheries could reduce populations of fish until they become dependent entirely on one year class for their annual harvest. A failure of a year class because spawning occurs only once every two years or because of some climatic factor, could be catastrophic to the fishery. Ability of fish species to reproduce successfully each year will have to be assessed and the result used to weigh any productivity index which might have been predetermined. Techniques Techniques for water analysis can be found in Dobie and Moyle (1956), Moyie and Burrows (1954), and American Public Health Association (1936). Total alkalinity can be measured in parts per million calcium carbonate using either the methyl orange or the brom cresol green methods. The latter method provides a sharper end point for titration and is generally preferred. In most instances total alka- linity can be determined in the field. Total phosphorus determinations are more difficult and should take place in a laboratory. The final determination can use either a colorimeter or a spectrophotometer. The latter instrument is rather expensive, but is more than justified by the accurate results obtained and the saving of a good deal of time which is otherwise used up in the preparation of colour standards for each analysis using a colorimeter. Costs In Minnesota, one graduate chemist is maintained full time to do all water chemical analyses, soil chemical analyses, flesh composition analyses, and other chemical determinations. This chemist is able to keep abreast of all the lake and pond surveys conducted in the State each year as well as conduct additional work in chemistry where required. The laboratory in Minnesota was originally equipped for a total of ^3*500.00 and requires about 'ji>7>000.00 per year to pay the wages of the chemist and supply additional equipment and reagents. In their laboratory are included several expensive items such as a spectrophotometer, a Kjeldahl still, a Kesslerizer, a distilled water still, a centrifuge, and a digestor. For total phosphorus determina- tions, some of the above items are not required, and others can be substituted with cheaper apparatus. We would recommend that at least a spectrophotometer, a distilled water still, and a suitable digestor be purchased. All this equipment, plus required glassware, could be purchased for well under $1, 500.00. A graduate chemist would not be required, but only a capable technician working part-time on water analyses. The total outlay, providing a suitable lab was available, would not amount to more than .» : 3 ,000.00 the first year. If these - 32 - techniques were extended on a province-wide basis, hiring of a full- time chemist or technician would probably be justified. Once established, maintenance of the laboratory would be reasonable, the wages of the chemist or technician each year being the one expensive item. Conclusions Water quality, as expressed in terms of total alkalinity, and water fertility, expressed as total phosphorus, are two of the best indices of lake productivity we have today. Knowing these two indices, we can predict pounds per acre sustainable harvest rate of a standing crop of fishes. The relationship of total phosphorus to production in terms of fish approaches a straight line, that of total alkalinity, a parabolic curve. Once these indices are establi- shed, predictions may be made regarding productivity in terms of fishes, providing the four other previously mentioned variables are calculated - lake morphometry, species composition, length of growing season, and success of spawning. These latter variables are usually obtained, at least in part, during routine lake surveys. The addi- tional water sample required gives a large return for the small addi- tional effort. It seems imperative that we do not neglect these techniques in our evaluation of lakes in Ontario. In Minnesota they have settled on this system only after more than fifteen years of lake surveys using organized survey crews and various techniques. The method has stood the test of time and realizing its limitations can procure for us the greatest amount of knowledge pertaining to the fish productivity of a lake, for the least amount of effort expended. - 33 - Literature Cited American Public Health Association. 1936. Standard methods for the examination of water and sewage. £th edition, XIV plus 309 pp., New York. Dobie, John and John Moyle. 1956. Methods used for investigating productivity of fish-rearing ponds in Minnesota. Minn. Fish. Res. Unit Special Publ. No. 5, 54 pp. Moyle, John B. 1949. Some indices of lake productivity. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc, 76 (1946) ;322-334. . 1946. Relationship between the chemistry of Minnesota surface waters and wildlife management. Jour. Wildl. Mgmt., 20 (1956) 3:303-320. , and Charles R. Burrows. 1954. Manual of lake survey instructions. Minn. Fish. Res. Unit Special Publ. No. 1. 70 pp. Rawson, D. S. 1952. Mean depth and fish production of large lakes. Ecol. 33s 513-521. Rounsefel, G. A. 1946. Fish production in lakes as a guide for estimating production in proposed reservoirs. Copeia, 1946 (l):29-40. ■ - 34 - WINTER FISHING FOR SPECKLED TROUT IN THE NORTHERN REGION DURING WINTER OF 19 5$ by N,. D. Patrick Abstract The objective of this project was to establish a short- term experimental winter fishery for speckled trout in lakes where they do not reproduce in order to assess the effectiveness of winter angling as a management tool. Twelve "non-reproducing" speckled trout lakes were opened to angling on an experimental basis during the period January 1st to April 30, 195$, From creel census data obtained estimates were made of total fishing effort and total harvest, It was found that the winter angling did not result in an undue harvest of trout. Angling success was generally poor although several of the lakes had good populations of trout f The results indicated that winter angling for speckled trout in lakes where they do not reproduce should be given full consideration as a management method. This project is in reality a Regional Project for the Northern Region and was prepared and carried out as directed by the Northern Region Fish and Wildlife Committee. It has been written up as a Swastika Project since the terms of reference of the Regional Committee have been altered. Much of the work carried out in the project was done by Cochrane District staff, and it was the Conserva- tion Officers of both Districts who collected the data involved. During the development of the Regional Fish Management Programme in 1956 and 1957; the problem of properly managing non- reproducing pot-hole speckled trout lakes was discussedo Since this type of water is entirely dependant on hatchery plantings., the closed season restrictions seem to have little function, and any means of increasing the return of planted fish to the anglers creel is worth investigation. Many persons, including our own staff, have long felt that winter angling for this species was disastrous, and often poor summer angling has been blamed on the illegal activities of one or two parties fishing the lake in the winter. This project was prepared to provide more information on winter angling for speckled trout. Objective s' To establish a short-term experimental winter fishery for speckled trout in lakes where they do not reproduce in order to assess the effectiveness of winter angling as a management tool. - 35 - Methods A series of 12 "non-reproducing" speckled trout lakes were opened to angling on an experimental basis during the period January 1st to April 30th, 195$. During the time these lakes were open, creel census data were obtained for the various days of the week during the four months the lakes were open. From these data, estima- tes of total fishing effort and total harvest were made. O bservations ; The twelve lakes opened are listed in Table I. Unfortunately, the creel census data* collected have definite limitations, but they are adequate to demonstrate the effectiveness of winter angling in the lakes in question. Table I shows estimates of fishing pressure and harvest based on the data collected, and it can be seen that even the best lake (Fisher Lake in German Township) produced less than one fish per fishing trip. The project provided an estimated minimum number of 3>174 fishing trips, and although there were some men who made many trips, there were probably close to 1,000 persons involved. TABLE I - Creel Census Data For Speckled Trout Lakes Open To Angling, January 1st to April 30th, 195$. Lake Wilson Jordan Andrew Fraser Horseshoe Horseshoe Blue Green Wiskin Devil ? s Punch Bowl Fisher West Twin TOTAL TOTAL LESS FISHER LAKE Estimated Est. Est. Number Total Catch Catch of Fishing Speckled Lake Trips/ Township Trips Trout 17 Trout Fish Lebel ) 142 8.4 Lebel ) McCann 133 65 2.8 Willi son 97 13 7.5 Dundonald 313 145 8 2.0 Mount joy 172** $ 4 14.3 Clute 410*** 85 20 3.9 Colquhoun 397*** 106 3.7 Colquhoun 73 15 4.9 Calvert 492 167 2.9 German $95 649 2 1.4 German - - - - 3174 2279 1270 34 32 2.4 621 3.5 ** These are actual creel data obtained - data were not adequate for estimate. *** Estimate for all but month of February for these lakes. February data entered as actual creel obtained. This was the first time field officers had done this type of work, and the data collected were good under the circumstances. - 36 - Very little comparable creel census data are available for the period following May 1st, but they seem to indicate that two of the lakes at least showed an improvement after the winter angling effort. In Andrew Lake, 37 trips produced 32 fish, while in Fraser Lake, four trips produced one fish. In Jordan and Wilson Lakes on the other hand, 44 trips produced only two fish. It should be pointed out that Wilson, Jordan, Andrew and Fraser Lakes were selected because they were known to produce poor fishing during the regular open sea- sons although lake surveys indicated reasonable populations of trout were available in them. Conclusion s It is obvious that the winter angling carried out during January - April, 195$, did not result in an undue harvest of trout. Angling success was poor in all the lakes, although several of them (Blue, Green and Wiskin for example) are excellent waters with good populations of trout. The results of this project most certainly indicate that winter angling for speckled trout in lakes where they do not reproduce should be given full consideration as a management method. - 37 - CREEL CENSUS - GOGAMA DISTRICT, 1959 by Jo E. Culliton Abstract Improvements in the method of collecting creel census returns in Gogama District resulted in more accurate tabulation of numbers and species of fish taken by- anglers in 1959* Returns are listed by main watershed areas in order to attain a more simplified and general picture of fishing success. Three methods of obtaining an analysis of fish caught are discussed. Detailed tables giving a complete analysis for the Yellow Pickerel, the most widely fished species in the district, are presented. Data show that 1,012 anglers fished a total of 9,535 hours to catch 4,957 pickerel or each angler caught an average of 4«$9 fisho In general, fewer anglers fished more hours to catch fewer fish in 1959 as compared with 195$. Summaries condensing the angling returns for Northern Pike, Speckled Trout, Lake Trout and Kamloops Trout are also given „ Creel census records were once again activated in the Gogama District during the 1959 fishing season. Improvements made in the creel census record return slip resulted this year in more accurate tabulation of numbers and species of fish taken by anglers. It is apparent however, that more improve- ments will have to be realized before highly accurate levels of records can be compiled. Rather than tabulate individual information on all the various small, interconnected lakes and streams in the district, it has been successfully attempted to break the returns down and form an overall picture of the main watershed areas. In doing this, a more simplified and general report on the fishing success of the district can be seen. Some major difficulties hindering accurate analysis presented themselves as the Creel Census Report was embarked upon. One item which introduces distortion of the returns, is simultaneous angling for two or more species of fish by a party. We have attempted to rectify this and arrive at a base for our calculations by the following simple method; (a) Where a party is fishing for Pickerel and Pike simultaneously; Where a party of two anglers fished three hours and caught 12 - 3^ - pickerel and six pike, we have considered the party to have been fishing their total man hours for both species, rather than for one in pre- ference to another. Therefore, in this instance the party caught 12 pickerel with a total of six man hours (or two pickerel per man hour)' and caught six pike with a total of six man hours, (or one pike per man hour). This is not, as first appearances indicate, doubling up on the hours, but merely the application of the hours fished directly to each species. (b) For those parties who recorded no catch of either species in pickerel and pike waters, it was assumed that they were fishing for pike and pickerel simultaneously, and their hours were applied as in (a) . W eather Conditions The weather throughout the 1959 fishing season was judged to be generally better than the previous year. May provided us with cool weather until around the lSth, at which point warm weather pre- vailed into June. June was generally warm with average rainfall persisting, July was cooler at the start than late June, but warmed up towards the end. August was our dampest month, starting out warm and dry, but wetting the district well before retiring into September. An average of 4.41 inches of rainfall fell in the district during August, the bulk of it at Gogama and Elsas, leaving Foleyet area relatively dry. Early September was warm but following the 10th, cool and wet weather prevailed, snow falling in Foleyet on the 15th. Table I deals exclusively with the Yellow Pickerel or Yellow Walleye, ( Stizostedion vitreum ) which is the prize of many anglers. The summary of pickerel 1959 (Table I (e)) draws some interesting conclusions. We see that 1,012 anglers fished a total of 9.535 hours to catch 4,957 pickerel. This gives each angler an average of 4«&9 fish, which is .31 fish per angler higher than last years record indicates. Our seasonal average of .93 fish per man hour is slightly lower than the average of 1.00 recorded last year. In general, fewer anglers fished more hours to catch fewer fish in 1959 as compared with 1958. Table I (a) breaks the overall picture down to the indivi- dual waterways, and once again some interesting totals can be observed regarding the number of fish released as opposed to those retained. It is noteworthy to compare, at this point, the various species in the report, observing the differences in the ratio of fish released to fish retained for each species. Looking at pickerel and pike, it is seen that more pickerel were kept per total fish caught than in the pike records. The Speckled Trout and Lake Trout tables indicate that these species were retained except where size rendered them useless as food. The Lake Trout totals indicate that 100$ of the fish caught were retained. This leads to substantiate the opinion that although Northern Pike are desirable as a game fish, they are generally not retained for food purposes by those parties who fish pickerel and pike simultaneously. - 39 - Table I (b) breaks the hours fished for pickerel down, and renders an accurate seasonal account of fishing pressure in man hours per month. Table 1 (c) analyzes the total pickerel caught during the fishing season, indicating the months of highest catch. A point of note here is that the month of highest catch (2455 pickerel in June) was one of our good weather months with average rainfall for that time of year. Table I (d) once again gives us a good idea of fishing pressure by offering a monthly breakdown of anglers. This table too, serves to indicate clearly the lakes in the district that are fished the heaviest. Minisinakwa Lake, with a total of 213 pickerel anglers recorded for the season leads the other lakes. This, of course is because it is in juxtaposition with Gogama, and many resident fisher- men without automobiles utilize the proximity of good fishing waters. Tables II, III, IV and V deal with Pike, Speckled Trout, Lake Trout and Kamloops Trout respectively. These tables are all broken down to sub-tables and follow in structure the description of the Pickerel, Table I. As Ketchiwaboose Lake is the only lake in the District where the Kamloops Trout is known to abound, we have not endeavoured to draw any conclusions as to fishing pressure etc. Table V will supply all the information required re this species for this report and, at a future date more complete data can be compiled. Summary At the onset of this report, it was our hope that a good cross-sectional picture of fish harvested by anglers in the district could be obtained. Unfortunately however, another difficulty was encountered as the work progressed. On some of our lakes, (because of the receipt of increased number of creel census returns) we have a better picture of fish harvested,, On the other hand we have waterways in which anglers were present but for which little or no records have been submitted. This appears to leave three alternative methods of obtaining an analysis of fish removed? (a) Base the final figure only on the lakes from which large quantities of returns were obtained. (b) Take into consideration all the lakes for which we have records, including the lakes for which returns indicate no fish caught, (although fish are known to be present). (c) Mathematical analysis utilizing our most accurate records and using the method of interpolation. - 40 - The most accurate and highly desirable of the above would be (c). In this method, areas of lakes could be taksn into account and a figure of fish harvested derived per area unit. This figure, combined with its area unit, could then be applied to the other waterways in the district, and a final figure thus obtained.. This system could be attempted at a future date when the necessary informa- tion on our lake areas is compiled by the Lake Survey Program. The method described in (a) will not, of course, give us either as accurate or as general a figure as is desired. For the present report it has been deemed sufficient that the second alternative, (b) be used, and from this basis our tables have been totalled. -CI- TABLE I (a) - Yellow Pickerel ( Stizostedion vitreum) No. No. No . No. No, Pickerel Fish Fish of of Per Re- Re- Total Ang- Man Man Name of Lake leased 172 tained 331 Caught 503 lers 117 Hours 732 Hour Matt again i L, ,70 Minisinakwa L. 213 490 703 213 615 1.14 Mesomikenda L. 652 360 1012 155 5027 .20 Grassy River 114 207 321 80 436 .66 Okawakenda L, 620 237 857 80 408 2.10 Ilichiwakenda L e 10 68 78 26 319 .24 Ivanhoe L 28 63 111 31 341 .32 Horwood L„ 42 110 152 27 192 .79 Upper Kenotogami L. 10 10 5 10 1.00 Groundhog L. 97 97 31 13 5 .71 Sinclair L. 42 43 85 32 210 .40 Kapiskong L 121 56 177 35 172 1.00 Kapuskasing L, 91 91 34 54 1.66 Wasapika L« 3 32 35 9 39 .89 Bonar L. 4 4 4 16 .25 Chris L. 11 30 41 9 45 .m Dumbell L. 5 8 13 4 8 1.62 Groundhog River 17 17 5 23 .73 Loonwing L a 11 29 40 12 76 .52 Stetham L. 8 20 28 12 54 .52 Nemagosenda L„ 33 33 21 36 .89 Saville L. 14 27 41 5 25 I.64 Shinners L. 150 121 271 5 160 1.63 Mound L. 32 32 15 81 .39 Somrae L« 50 3 53 2 28 1.89 Claw River 5 12 17 2 1 '4 4.22 White Duck L. 15 15 4 20 .75 Scorch L. 8 8 2 10 .m Nabakwasi River 6 f> 4 20 .30 Singed Tree L. 4 4 3 12 .33 Kenogamissi L. 15 8 23 2 12 1.91 Blair L, 12 12 2 12 1.00 Makami River 21 21 k 10 2.10 rris Lake 9 9 18 Q y 46 .39 Shoofly L. 4 4 7 29 .13 Kasaway L c 12 12 2 60 .20 Nursey L. 12 12 2 8 1,50 TOTAL 2315 2642 4957 1012 9535 34.40 - 42 - TABLE I (b) - Pickerel Man Hours 1959 Season May Name of Lake Or Stream June July August Sept. Totals Linisinakwa Lake 154 201 99 161 _ 615 Mattagami Lake 51 182 2 53 246 - 732 Iiesomikenda Lake 114 3207 1073 596 32 5027 Grassy River - 217 229 - 40 436 Okawakenda Lake g 133 130 73 54 403 kichiwakenda Lake 2 59 30 13 - 12 319 Ivanhoe Lake 4 273 36 16 12 341 Horwood Lake 30 43 114 - - 192 Upper Kenotogami Lake - 10 - - - 10 Groundhog Lake 43 15 - 72 - 13 5 Kapiskong Lake - 123 44 - - 172 Sinclair Lake 75 24 95 16 - 210 Kapuskasing Lake 25 29 - - - 54 Wasapika Lake - - - IB 21 39 Bonar Lake - - 16 — — 16 Chris Lake - - - - 45 45 Dumbell Lake 3 5 - - - 3 Groundhog River - 22 1 - - 23 Loonwing Lake 16 60 - - - 76 Stetham Lake - - 54 - - 54 Nemagosenda Lake - 22 14 - - 36 Saville Lake - — 25 - - 25 Shinners Lake - 160 - - - 160 Mound Lake - 73 3 - - 31 Sornrae Lake - - 28 - 23 Claw River 4 - - - - 4 White Duck Lr.ke - 20 - - - 20 Scorch Lake 10 - - - — 10 Nabakwasi River 20 - - - - 20 Singed Tree Lake 12 - - - - 12 Kenogamissi Lake — 12 - - - 12 Blair Lake 12 - - - — 12 Makami River - - 10 - - 10 Ferris Lake - 4 42 - - 46 Shoofly Lake 9 20 - - — 29 Kasaway Lake - 60 - - — 60 Nursey Lake 354 - 8 - - 3 Totals 4960 2274 1231 216 9535 - 43 - TABLE I (c) - Pickerel Caught 1959 Season May August Name of Lake Or Stream June July Sept o Totals Kinisinakwa Lake 17fi 368 68 89 M 703 Mattagarni Lake 3S 196 127 142 - 503 I.esomikenda Lake 90 539 244 115 24 1012 Grassy River - 180 125 - 16 321 Okawakenda Lake 78 3 S3 216 160 20 857 Michiwakenda Lake 49 8 16 - 5 78 Ivanhoe Lake 8 97 4 2 - 111 Korwood Lake 39 76 37 - - 152 Upper Kenotogami Lake - 10 - - - 10 Groundhog Lake 20 2 - 75 - 97 Kapiskong Lake - 135 42 - - 177 Sinclair Lake 10 1 70 4 - 85 Kapuskasing Lake 74 17 - - - 91 Wasapika Lake - - - 21 14 35 Bonar Lake - - 4 - _ 4 Chris Lake - - - - 41 41 Dumbell Lake 3 10 - - - 13 Groundhog River - 12 5 - - 17 Loonwing Lake 7 33 - - - 40 Stetham Lake - - 28 - - 28 Nemagosenda Lake - 31 2 - - 33 Saville Lake - - 41 - - 41 Shinners Lake - 271 - - - 271 Mound Lake - 31 1 - - 32 Somme Lake - - - 53 - 53 Claw River 17 - - - - 17 White Duck Lake - 15 - - - 15 Scorch Lake 8 - - - - 8 Nabakwasi River 6 - - - - 6 Singed Tree Lake 4 - - - - 4 Kenogamissi Lake - 23 - - - 23 Blair Lake 12 - - - - 12 Makami River - - 21 - - 21 Ferris Lake - 3 15 - - 18 Shoofly Lake 2 2 - - - 4 Kasaway Lake - 12 - - - 12 Nursey Lake 643 - 12 1078 - - 12 Totals 2455 661 120 4957 - 44 - TABLE I (d) - Pickerel Anglers 1959 Season Name of Lake Or Stream Minisinakwa Lake Mattagami Lake Mesomikenda Lake Grassy River Okawakenda Lake Michiwakenda Lake Ivanhoe Lake Horwood Lake Upper Kenotogami Lake Groundhog Lake Kapiskong Lake Sinclair Lake Kapuskasing Lake Wasapika Lake Bonar Lake Chris Lake Dumb ell Lake Groundhog River Loonwing Lake Stetham Lake Nemagosenda Lake Saville Lake Sinnners Lake Mound Lake Somme Lake Claw River White Duck Lake Scorch Lake Nabakwasi River Singed Tree Lake Kenogamissi Lake Blair Lake Makami River Ferris Lake Shoofly Lake Kasaway Lake Nursey Lake Totals May June July 32 August 51 Sept. Totals 53 77 213 15 50 31 21 - 217 20 50 56 25 4 155 - 31 45 - 4 m 2 31 24 11 12 m 11 7 5 - 3 26 4 15 5 4 3 31 7 9 11 - - 27 - 5 - - - 5 8 3 - 20 - 31 - 23 12 - - 35 7 17 4 4 - 32 22 12 - - - 34 - - - - 5 9 - - 4 - - 4 - - - - 9 9 2 2 mm — - 4 - 4 1 - - 5 3 9 - - - 12 — - 12 - - 12 - 14 7 - - 21 - - 5 - - 5 - 5 - - - 5 - 13 2 - - 15 - - - 2 - 2 2 - - - - 2 - 4 - - - 4 2 - - — — 2 4 - - - - 4 3 - - - - 3 - 2 - - - 2 2 - - - - 2 - - 4 - - 4 - 2 7 - - 9 3 4 - - - 7 - 2 - M - 2 - - 2 " - 2 170 391 269 142 40 1012 - 45 - TABLE I (e) - Summary of Pickerel Angling 1959 Season . (1) Total number of man hours spent . .. . 9535 (2) Total number of pickerel caught per man hour .52 (3) Average number of pickerel caught per man hour .93 (4) Number of pickerel caught per 100 hours angling 52 (5) Total number of pickerel released 2315 (6j Total number of pickerel retained ••••• 2642 (7) Total number of pickerel caught • •••• 4957 ($) Total number of pickerel anglers •••••••« 1012 (9) Average number of pickerel per angler • • 4«$9 TABLE II - Summary of Northern Pike Angling 1959 Season * (1) Total number of man hours fished by pike anglers 7206 2) Total number of pike per man hour .22 (3) Average number of pike per man hour .62 (4J Number of pike per 100 hours fished by anglers 22 (5) Total number of pike released 1011 (6) Total number of pike retained 540 (7) Total number of pike caught by anglers 1551 (£) Total number of anglers 721 (9) Average number of pike per angler ••••• 2.14 * Lengthy tables concerning various lakes were included in the original report. TABLE III - Summary of Speckled Trout Angling 1959 Season (1) Total number of hours fished by speckled trout anglers .. 39#2 (2) Total number of speckled trout per man hour ..... ...... . .12 (3| Average number of Speckled Trout per man hour .69 (4) Number of Speckled Trout caught per 100 hours of angling. 12 ( 5 Total number of Speckled Trout released 40 (6) Total number of Speckled Trout retained • 419 (7) Total number of Speckled Trout caught by anglers 459 (8) Total number of Speckled Trout anglers 1#9 (9) Average number of Speckled Trout per angler • 2.43 - 46 - TABLE IV - Summary of Lake Trout Angling 1959 Season , (1) Total number of hours fished by Lake Trout Anglers 646 (2) Total number of Lake Trout per man hour •••••••« .17 (3) Average number of Lake Trout per man hour B ... .19 (4) Number of Lake Trout caught per 100 hours of angling .... .17 (5) Total number of Lake Trout released ............ ........ . (6) Total number of Lake Trout retained 110 (7) Total number of Lake Trout caught 110 ($) Total number of Lake Trout anglers 54 (9) Average number of Lake Trout per angler 2.04 TABLE V - Kamloops Trout Ketchiwaboose Lakes No. Fish No. Fish Total Fish No. of No. of No. of Kamloops Released Retained Caught Anglers Man Hrs. Trout Per Man Hr. 57 55 112 19 219 .51 Fishing Pressure By Man Hours? May June July August Total Number of man hours IS lg 4$ 13 5 219 Fishing Pressure By Number of Anglers: May June July Number of anglers 2 3 5 Fish Harvested Per Month: May June July August Total Number of fish caught 12 21 49 30 112 N. B. This lake is the only lake in the District where the Kamloops Trout is known to abound. - 47 - INDEX TO FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT REPORTS July, 1951 to February, I960 NUMBERS 1 TO 50 BIRDS Annotated List of Birds Seen On the Asheweig River, 1950, C. A. Elsey, No. 23, June 1, 1955. Annotated List of Birds Seen at Kasabonika Lake, May 27th-June 5th, 1953, A. T. Cringan, No. 24, Aug. 1, 1955. Birds, Mammals and Fish of Extreme Northwestern Ontario, Notes On, J. A. Macfie, No. 16, Apr. 1, 1954. Birds, Mammals and Fishes of Extreme North-western Ontario, Additional Notes On, J. A. Macfie, No. 40, Apr. 1, 1958. Birds Observed At Big Island, Lake of the Woods, Jan. 22-Feb. 8, 1953 , A. T. Cringan, No. 31, Oct. 1, 1956. Botulism Research At Normandale Bird Farm, S. W. Mound, No. 26, Dec. 1, 1955. Brant In Tweed District, 1953, H. G. Lumsden, No. 19, Oct., 1954. Brant Migration, Summary of Fall, Thomas W. Barry, No. 3 5, June 1, 1957. Canada Goose Kills By the Indians of Northern Ontario, An Evaluation Of, Harold C. Hanson & Campbell Currie, No. 32, Dec. 1, 1956. Check of Duck Hunters In Rondeau Park, Oct. 2, 1954, R. A. McLaren, No. 22, Apr. 1, 1955. Duck Banding At Toronto Island, 1954, W. J. Douglas Stephen, No. 20, Dec. 1, 1954. Duck Banding, Toronto Island, 1955, W. J. D. Stephen & John Goddard, No. 26, Dec. 1, 1955. Duck Banding - Gogama District, 1959, J. E. Culliton, No. 50, Feb., I960. Duck Census and Brood Count, 1957, Kenora District, V. Macins, No. 38, Dec. 1, 1957. Duck and Grouse Brood Counts from the Districts of Chapleau, Geraldton, Sioux Lookout, Fort Frances and Port Arthur, A. de Vos, No. 10, Mar. 1, 1953. Duck Habitat Improvement Survey, Preliminary Report, J. K. Shields, No. 28, Apr. 1, 1956. Duck Hunting In the Lake Erie District, L„ J. Stock, No. 33, Feb. 1, 1957. Duck Hunting Season Report On Opening Day 1959 At Holland Marsh, R. H. Trotter & A. A. Wainio, No. 49, Nov. 1, 1959. Duck Nesting Baskets, G. F. Boyer, No. 41, June 1, 1958. Ducks Caught In Muskrat Traps, Quint e District, H. G. Lumsden, No. 2, Nov., 1951. Exotic Birds, C. H. D. Clarke, No. 17, June 1, 1954. Experiment In Scaring Starlings By Sound At Buffalo, New York, A. H. Berst, No. 20, Dec. 1, 1954. Further Report on the Scaring of Starlings by Sound at Buffalo, New York, John F. Hagerty, No. 22, Apr. 1, 1955. Goose Survey - Bear Head Lake, Sept. 10-26, 1958, R. Malloch, No. 46, May, 1959. Ground Cover and Winter Feeding, H. P. Nicholson, No. 18, Aug., 1954. - k& - Grouse In the Gogama District, 1958, George Vozeh, No. 45, Mar., 1959. Grouse On Manitoulin Island, H. G. Lumsden, No. 7, Octo, 1952c Grouse Report Sharp-tail, Fort Frances District, Winter and Spring, 1959, J. Farr, No. 49, Nov., 1959. Grouse Season Fort Frances District, Report On the 1958, J. A. Farr, No. 45, Mar., 1959. Grouse Stocking on Cockburn Island, Harold McQuarrie, No. 4, June, 1952. Hungarian Partridge Report, District of Rideau, N. D. Patrick, No. 13, Sept., 1953. Hungarian Partridges, H. G. Lumsden, No. 5, Aug., 1952. Hungarian Partridges in the New Liskeard Farming District, Feb., 1955, Survey of, W. L. Sleeman, No. 24, Aug., 1955* Hungarian Shoot, 1951, N. D. Patrick, No. 3, Apr., 1952. Hybrid Goose In Prince Edward County, H. G. Lumsden, No. 17, June, 1954. James Bay Report, 1957, G. F. Boyer, No. 40, Apr., 1958. Luther Marsh Game Bag Census, 1954, J. F. Gage & W. H. Cantelon, No. 22, Apr., 1955. Luther Marsh Game Bag Census, Oct. 6, 1956, J. F. Gage, No. 32, Dec, 1956. Luther Marsh Game Bag Census Report, Oct. 5, 1957, J. F. Gage, No. 38, Dec, 1957. Luther Marsh Game Bag Census, Oct. 4, 1958, R» T ^« Hummel & T. M. Nicholl, No. 44, Dec, 1958. Luther Marsh Game Bag Census, Oct. 3, 1959, R. E. Mason, No. 49, Nov., 1959. Luther Marsh, Ontario, An Investigation of, J. H. Day, No. 28, Apr., 1956. Luther Marsh Waterfowl Census for Oct. 1st, 1955, W. H. Cantelon, No. 27, Feb., 1956. Mid-winter Waterfowl Inventory, 1954, H. 0. Lumsden, No. 20, Dec, 1954. Mid-winter Waterfowl Inventory, 1955, H. G. Lumsden, No. 23, June, 1955. Midwinter Waterfowl Inventory for Ontario, 1957, George M, Stirrett, No. 3 5, June, 1957*. Midwinter Inventory for Ontario, 1958, C. F. Boyer, No. 40, Apr., 1958. Mid-winter Waterfowl Inventory, Ont., 1959, G. F. Boyer, No. 48, Sept., 1959. Mourning Dove Road Counts, L. J. Stock, No. 32, Dec, 1956. Mourning Dove Road Count, Lake Erie District, 1957, L. J Stock, No. 43, Oct., 1958. Notes on the Occurrence of Blue, and Snow Geese in the Sioux Lookout District, A. T. Cringan, No. 19, Oct., 1954. Pelee Island Pheasant Disease Findings, J. K. McGregor, No. 3 5, June, 1957. Pheasant Harvest - 1957, Lake Huron District, R. E. Mason, No, 40, Apr. 1958. Pelee Island Pheasant Shoot - 1952, C. 0. Bartlett, No. 9, Jan., 1953. Pelee Island Pheasant Shoots of 1953 and 1954, Some Statistics and Comments on the, C. 0. Bartlett, No. 22, Apr., 1955. Pelee Island Pheasant Shoot - 1955, Statistics on, L. J„ Stock, No. 27, Feb., 1956. - 49 - Pelee Island Pheasant Shoot - 1956, Statistics and Comments, L„ J. Stock, No. 34, Apr., 1957. Pelee Island Pheasant Shoot - 1957, Statistics and Comments, L. J. Stock, No. 39, Feb., 1958. Pelee Island Pheasant Shoot - 1958, Statistics and Comments, L. J. Stock, No. 43, Sept., 1959« Pelee Island Pheasant Shoot, 1959, Statistics and Comments, L. J. Stock, No. 50, Feb., i960. Pelee Island Pheasants, Investigations of Parasitism, J. K. McGregor, No. 27, Feb., 1956. Pheasant Council, Report of Inaugural Meeting of Midwest, Madelia, Minnesota, Jan. 14-15, 1953, J. K. Reynolds, No. 40, Apr., 1958. Pheasant Densities, Land Use and Its Effect On, F. C. Van Nostrand, No. 38, Dec, 1957. Pheasant, North Norwich Experiment Report for 1949, J. F. Gage, No. 12, July, 1953o Pheasant Report, Lake Siracoe District, 1950, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 19, Oct., 1954. Pheasant Report, Lake Simcoe District, 1954, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 23, June, 1955. Pheasant Season, 1955, Lake Simcoe District, J. S. Dorland, No. 28, Apr., 1956. Pheasant Season, 1957, In the Regulated Townships of the Lake Simcoe District, J. S. Dorland, No. 39, Feb., 1958. Pheasant Stocking In New York State, A Proposal To Increase the Effectiveness of, Ben Bradley, No. 22, Apr., 1955. Pheasant Shoot for the Township of North Norwich, County of Oxford, for 1952, J. F. Gage, No. 13, Sept., 1953. Pheasant Shoot, North Norwich, Oxford County for 1954, W. H. Cantelon, No. 23, June, 1955. Pheasant Shoot for the Township of North Norwich, County of Oxford, 1955, W. H. Cantelon, No. 29, June, 1956. Pheasant Season Report, 1956, Lake Huron District, W. H. Cantelon, No. 33, Feb., 1957. Pheasant Shoot Report, Township of North Norwich, County of Oxford for 1953, W. H. Cantelon, No. 17, June, 1954. Pheasant Survey, Plympton Township, 1956, A. R. Streib, No. 39, Feb., 1953. Possibilities of Successfully Introducing Hungarian Partridges to the Fort Frances Area, J. A. Farr, No. 46, May, 1959. Preliminary Report on the Relative Value of Releasing Pheasants the Day Before the Season, R. E. Mason, No. 45, Mar., 1959. Quail Trapping Operations In Southern Ontario, February - March, 1956, Ralph Smith, Charles Brown and Don Schierbaum, No. 29, June, 1956. Results of the Duck Banding Programme at the Toronto Islands, 1954 and 1955, A. de Vos, No. 41, June, 1953. Ruffed Grouse Age and Sex, 1951, H. G. Lumsden, No. 3, Apr., 1952. Ruffed Grouse Age and Sex, Bagged During the 1957 Season in Sault Ste. Marie District, P. Kwaterowsky, No. 39, Feb., 1958. Ruffed Grouse, Age, Sex and Brood Counts of, H. G. Lumsden, No. 15, Feb., 1954. Ruffed Grouse Age and Sex Report Kenora District, 1957, G. C. Myers, No. 39, Feb., 1958. . - 50 - Ruffed Grouse Age and Sex, Swastika District, 1956, R. C. Johanson, No. 34* Apr. ; 1957. Ruffed Grouse Bag Census, 1956, Parry Sound Forest District, F. A. Walden, No, 35? June, 1957. Ruffed Grouse Age and Sex Bagged During 1958 Season In Swastika District, Roy C. Johanson, No. 45* liar., 1959. Ruffed Grouse Brood Count, H. G, Lumsden, No. 11, Kay, 1953° Ruffed Grouse Brood Counts In Tweed District, 1954* H, G. Lumsden, No. 22, Apr., 195 5 . Ruffed Grouse Brood Counts, 1955* Tweed District, P. A. Thompson, No. 25* Oct., 1955» Ruffed Grouse Censuc and Brood Counts in Port Arthur District, 195$, Wo Jo McKeown et al, No. 45* Mar., 1959. Ruffed Grouse In Parry Sound District, 19 58* J r A. Dube & F. A. Walden, No, 45, Mar., 1959. Ruffed Grouse Report, 1958, North Bay District, J. F. Gage, No. 45* Mar., 1959c Ruffed and Spruce Grouse Fall Sex and Age Ratios in Sioux Lookout District, 1957* D. W. Simkin, No. 39, Feb., 1958. Ruffed and Spruce Grouse Sex and Age Ratios In Sioux Lookout District, 1958, D„ ¥. Simkin, No. 45, Mar., 1959. Ruffed Grouse Sex and Age Ratios, Tweed District, 1955, P. A. Thompson, No. 28, Apr., 1956. Ruffed Grouse, Significance of Mean Weight Variations In Weekly Samples of Juvenal, Thunder Bay District, 1957, R. A. Rvder, No. 39, Feb., 1958. Ruffed Grouse and Spruce Grouse In Chapleau District, 1957, V. Crichton, No. 39* Feb., 1958. Ruffed Grouse Sex and Age Data Tail and Wings, Pembroke District, 1958, W. Re Catton, No. 45* Mar., 1959. Ruffed Grouse, Weight Variations of Juvenal, Port Arthur District, 1957* E. J. Swift, No. 39, Feb., 1958. Ruffed Grouse, White River District, 1958, C. W. Douglas, No. 45, Mar e , 1959 . Sharptail and Ruffed Grouse in the Fort Frances Area, John Miller, No. 39, Feb., 1958o Sharptails, Management of, Fort Frances District, C. A. Elsey, No. 39, Feb., 1958c Songbird Mortality Following Soil Treatment With Aldrin, L. J. Stock & Jacob Kalff, No, 3 5* June, 1957 > Snow Geese at Winisk, 1955* V. Crichton, No. 28, Apr., 1956. Status of Sharp-tailed Grouse, Kenora District, A. R, Olsen, No. 50, Feb., I960. Water Birds Killed at Niagara, H. G. Lumsden, No. 4* June, 1952. Waterfowl Accidentally Taken in Muskrat Traps, N„ D„ Patrick, No. 16, Apr , 1954." Waterfowl Bag Checks Tweed District, 1953* H c G. Lumsden, No. 18, Aug., 1954. Waterfowl Bag, 1954, Species Composition of Western Region, A. T. Cringan, No. 25, Oct,, 1955« Waterfowl Bag Check, Tweed District, Sept. 19, 1959* W. W. Bittle, No, 49* Nov., 1959. Waterfowl Banding - Gogama District, 1956, W. R. Catton, No. 33* Feb., 1957o - 51 - Waterfowl Banding, Gogama District, 1957, R. Catton, No. 39, Feb., 1953. Waterfowl Banding, Gogama District, 195$* H. P. Endress, No. 44, Dec, 1953. Waterfowl Banding - Gogama - Grassy River Area, Alex Dzubin, No. 27, Feb., 1956. Waterfowl Band Recovery Program, Sioux Lookout District, Oct. 25/51- Feb. 13/53, a. T. Cringan, No. 16, Apr., 1954. Waterfowl Band Recovery Program, Sioux Lookout District, Third Progress Report, Feb. 14, 1953-Mar. 23, 1954, A. T, Cringan, No. 20, Dec, 1954. Waterfowl Band Recovery Program, Sioux Lookout District, Progress Report March 24/54- July 31/55, A. T. Cringan, No. 26, Dec, 1955. Waterfowl Breeding Ground Survey in Accessible Areas of Sioux Lookout District, 195$, D. W. Simkin, No. 43, Oct., 1953. Waterfowl Breeding Ground Survey, Quinte District, 1951, H. G. Lumsden, No. 2, Nov., 1951. Waterfowl Breeding Ground Survey, Tweed District, 1953, H. G. Lumsden, No. 17, June, 1954« Waterfowl Breeding Ground Survey, Tweed District, 1954, H. G. Lumsden, No. 21, Feb., 1955. Waterfowl Breeding Ground Survey, Tweed District, 1956, W. W. Bittle, No. 31, Oct., 1956. Waterfowl Breeding Stock in Quinte District, 1952, H. G. Lumsden, No. 11, May, 1953. Waterfowl Brood Production of Luther Marsh, Ontario, 1956, Investiga- tion of, H. Gray Merriam & D. I. Gillespie, No. 33, Feb., 1957. Waterfowl Caught in Muskrat Traps, Kemptville District, 1955-56, G. C. Myers & J. B. Dawson, No. 32, Dec, 1956. Waterfowl Caught in Muskrat Traps, Kemptville District, 1956-57, D. J. Gawley, No. 39, Feb., 1953. Waterfowl Caught in Muskrat Traps in Patricia West and Patricia Central Districts, 1957-53, Season, D. W. Simkin, No. 44, Dec, 1953. Waterfowl Census, Whitefish Lake, Port Arthur District, Peter Nunan, No. 43, Oct., 1953. Waterfowl Conditions in the Mississippi Flyway, Winter of 1957-53, Summary of, A. S. Hawkins, No. 1+0, Apr., 1953. Waterfowl Hunters* Bag Checks, Tweed District, 1954, H. G. Lumsden, No. 22, Apr., 1955. Waterfowl Hunter's Bag Checks, Tweed District, 1955, P. A. Thompson, No. 26, Dec, 1955. Waterfowl Notes from Lake of the Woods, H. E. Deedo & H. G. Lumsden, No. 25, Oct., 1955. Waterfowl Notes from Whitefish Bay Lake of the Woods, J. Carswell, No. 24, Aug., 1955. Waterfowl Observations in the Cochrane District of Northern Ontario, C. 0. Bartlett, No. 3, Apr., 1952. Waterfowl Observations in the Perrault Falls Area, Sioux Lookout District, 1953-54, A. T. Cringan, No. 20, Dec, 1954. Waterfowl Observations, Perrault Falls Area, Sioux Lookout District Summer, 1954, A. T. Cringan, W. J. D. Stephens & J. Elbrink, No. 21, Feb., 1955. Waterfowl Production and Predation in the Marshes of Prince Edward County, A. T. Cringan, No. 46, May, 1959. . - 52 - Waterfowl Production Survey, Gogama District - a Comparison of Three Counting Methods, J. A. I-Iacfie, No. 44, Dec, 1958. Waterfowl Shooting Around a Small Sanctuary, D. N. Weill, No, 32, Deco, 1956. Waterfowl Survey of Northwestern Ontario, 1950, Lester W. Gray, No. 32, Dec, 1956. Waterfowl Surveys, Helicopter Use on, H, G. Lumsden, No. 21, Feb., 1955. Waterfowl Taken in Msukrat Traps, Rideau District, 1954? N. D. Patrick, No. 21, Feb., 1955. Wetland Work in New York State, G. F. Boyer, No. 43, Oct., 195c Wild Turkey Project, Lindsay District, Ken Tolmie, No. 46, May, 1959. Wild Turkey Release in Lambton County, Report on, C, 0. Bartlett, No. 10, Mar., 1953. Wild Turkey in Southwestern Ontario, 0. L. Mellick & L. J. Stock, No. 50, Feb., I960. Willow Ptarmigan, Additional Notes on the Abundance of, In Northwestern Ontario, 1952-53, a. T. Cringan, No. 24, Aug., 1955. Willow Ptarmigan in Northwestern Ontario, Notes on the Abundance of, A. T. Cringan, No. 7, Oct., 1952. Wing and Tail Feathers Collection, Kenora District, 1958, M. Linklater, No. 45, Mar., 1959. Woodcock Census Report, May, 1955, Sault Ste. Marie District, M. W. I. Smith, No. 31, Oct., 1956. Woodcock Notes from Manitoulin Island, 1952, H. G. Lumsden, No. 12, July, 1953. Woodcock in Ontario, Northern Distribution, G. F. Boyer, No. 48, Sept., 1959. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT Considerations Concerning a Wetland Inventory for Southern Ontario, J. B. Dawson, No. 49, Nov., 1959. Enforcement Project, Port Arthur District, 195$, D„ D'Agostini, No. 46, May, 1959. Experimental Wetlands Appraisal in Southern Ontario, H. Gray Merriam, No. 32, Dec, 1956. Farm Ponds, A. H. Berst & J. D. Roseborough, No. 29, June, 1956. Forest Wildlife Management, Clyde P. Patton, No. 34, Apr., 1957. Game Laws, C. H. D. Clarke, No. 18, Aug., 1954. Observations of Small Marsh Development In Upper New York State (with comments and criticisms by E. L„ Cheatum et al), J. B. Dawson, No. 24, Aug., 1955. Report on Field Trip to Marsh Development Areas in Northern New York State, Nov. 21-23, 1955, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 28, Apr., 1956. Report on the Seventeenth Midwest Wildlife Conference, Dec. 12-14, 1955 Lafayette, Indiana, K. H. Loftus & J. K. Reynolds, No. 27, Feb., 1956. Report on the Twenty-fourth North American Wildlife Conference, New York, Mar. 1-4, 1959, J. K. Reynolds, No. 46, May, 1959. Some Thoughts on Game Laws, C. H. D. Clarke, No. 26, Dec, 1955. Wetland Management Program for Wildlife in Southern Ontario, Antoon de Vos, No. 34, Apr., 1957. [ - 53 - FORESTRY AND BOTANY Aquatic Weeds In Fishing Waters, Methods of Control for, H. R. McCriramon, No. 9, Jan., 1953. Blueberry Cropping Experiment in Port Arthur District, R. Boultbee, No. 28, Apr., 1956. English Water Grass in Tweed District, H. G. Lumsden, No. 15, Feb., 1954. Evaluation of Common Aquatic Plants as Food for Waterfowl, Muskrats, Beaver and Moose, J. K. Reynolds, No. 23, June, 1955. Harvesting of Wild Rice, Fort Frances Forest Area, H. E. Pearson, No. 27, Feb., 1956. Kelvin Island Survey, 194$, P. A. Addison, No. 5, Aug., 1952. Preliminary Check-list of Trees, Shrubs and Woody Vines Native to Rondeau Provincial Park, R. D. Ussher, No. 29, June, 1956. FISH AND FISHERIES Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ) and Black Crappie ( Pomoxis nigro-maculatus ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 24, Aug., 1955. Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Common White Sucker ( Catostomus commersonnii ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 16, Apr., 1954. Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Lake Trout ( Salvelinus namaycush ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. IS, Aug., 1954* Additional Age and Growth of Ontario Fish - Lake Whitefish ( Coregonus clupeaformis ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 20, Dec, 1954. Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Largemouth Bass ( Micropterus salmoides ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 14, Nov., 1953* Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Pumpkinseed (Sunfish) ( Lepomis gibbosus ) and Rock Bass ( Ambloplites rupestris ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 15, Feb., 1954. Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Rainbow Trout ( Salmo gairdnerii) and Brown Trout ( Salmo trutta) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 19, Oct., 1954. Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Smallmouth Bass ( Micropterus dolomieui ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 13, Sept., 1953. Additional Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish - Speckled Trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis ) 9 0„ E. Devitt, No. 17, June, 1954. Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Fish Yellow Pikeperch or Pickerel ( Stizostedion vitreum ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 12, July, 1953* Age and Growth Rates of Ontario Northern Pike ( Esox lucius ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 10, Mar., 1953. Additional Age and Growth Records of Ontario Fish - Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 11, May, 1953. Age and Size Records of Ontario Maskinonge ( Esox masquinongy ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 9, Jan., 1953. Age and Growth Records of Ontario Sturgeon ( Acipenser fulvescens ) , 0. E. Devitt, No. 34, Apr., 1957. Angler and Fisheries Management, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 23, June, 1955. Angling in Fanshawe Lake, Report of, J. D. Roseborough, No. 3$, Dec, 1957. - 54 - Bass Lake Fishery Survey, 1955; H. R. McCriramon, No. 28, Apr,, 1956. Biological Survey of Boundary Lake, Conger Township, Parry Sound District, F. A. Walden, No. 26, Dec, 1955. Biological Survey of Compass Lake, District of Parry Sound, 1950, F. A. Walden, No. 22, Apr„, 1955" Biological Survey of Engineers Lake, Kenora District, P-, F. Chidley, No. 20, Dec, 1954c Biological Survey of Hilly Lake, Kenora District, Pc F. Chidley, No. 21, Feb., 1955. Biological Survey of Whitefish Bay, Lake of the Woods, P. F. Chidley, No. 16, Apr., 1954. Carp Introduction Into Ontario, Anonymous, No. 32, Dec, 1956. Carp on the North Shore of Lake Superior, Port Arthur and Geraldton Districts, R. A. Ryder, No. 31? Oct., 1956. Carp Removal Programme, Lake Scugog, H„ L McCrimmon, No. 31, Oct., 1956. Case for Fish Hatcheries In Ontario, G. C Armstrong, No. 41, June, 195^. Check-list of the Fishes Taken in the Attawapiskat River and Adjoining James Bay, 1957, R. A. Ryder, No. 41, June, 1958. Creel Census Conducted During the Year 1952 In the North Bay Forestry District, Initial Report on the General, R. E. Whitfield, No. 19, Oct., 1954* Creel Census Conducted at the Mississagi and White River Travel Permit Gates, K. H. Loftus, No. 17, June, 1954. Creel Census and Its Future Role in Fisheries Management of the Western Region, J. M. Fraser, No. 38, Dec, 1957. Creel Census - Kenora District, 1955, J. M. Fraser, No. 37, Oct., 1957. Creel Census and Lake Survey - Fanshawe Lake, M. G. Johnson, No. 38, Dec, 1957. Creel Census of the Black Sturgeon Area, 1956, R. A, Ryder, No. 39, Feb., 1958. Creel Census of the Black Sturgeon Area, 1957, C. A. Rettie, No. 40, Apr,, 1958. Creel Census Study on Speckled Trout, J. F e Gage, No. 10, Mar., 1953. Creel Census Report for Eugenia Hydro Pond, 1952., J. F„ Gage, No. 22, Apr., 1955. Creel Census Report - 1953 Sault Ste, Marie District, Kenneth H. Loftus, No, 20, Dec, 1954* Creel Census, Sault Ste. Marie, 1955, K. H. Loftus, No. 31, Oct., 1956. Creel Census 1956, Sault Ste. Marie District, No. 38, Dec, 1957. Coarse Fish Removal at Spring Valley Mill Pond, Waterloo County, J. F. Gage, No, 34, Apr., 1957o Coarse Fish Removal, Heart Lake, 1957, Murray G. Johnson, No. 40, Apr., 1958, Commercial Fisheries Management, A. H. Berst, No. 26, Dec, 1955. Commercial Fishing in Ontario, G. C. Armstrong, No. 21, Feb., 1955. Comparison of the Rate of Growth Exhibited by the Progeny of Hatchery Reared Speckled Trout and Lake Nipigon Wild Trout Obtained at the Dorian Rearing Station, 1950, G. C. Armstrong, No. 24, Aug., 1955. Determination by Units of the Number and General Location of Tourist Outfitters 9 Camps in Zone #2 on the Basis of Fish Production, K„ H. Loftus, Noo 18, Aug., 1954. Developments in the Mechanics of Hatchery Operations, R. A. Weir, No. 41, June, 1958. - 55 - Effect of Distributing Eyed Whitefish ( Coregonus clupeaformis Mitchill) and Yellow Pickerel ( Stizostedion vitreum Mitchill) Eggs on the Commercial Fisheries of Rainy Lake, Ontario, C. A. Elsey, No. 48, Sept., 1959. Evolution of a Natural Trout Lake Into a Warm-water Lake, R. A. Ryder, No. 29, June, 1956. Fishflake Feeding Experiment With Speckled Trout, 1951, a. H. Berst, No. 11, May, 1953. Fish Poisoning, Kelly Lake, King, Ontario, M. M. Telford, No. 16, Apr., 1954. Fish Poisoning Project Report for Sunova Lake, County of Oxford, Ont., J. F. Gage, No. 46, May, 1959. Fish Tagging Studies In Whitefish Bay Lake of the Woods In 1954 and 1955, J. M. Fraser, No. 32, Dec, 1956. Game Fish, Management of, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 25, Oct., 1955. Hatchery Experiment With Ouananiche Eggs, North Bay Hatchery, Redbridge, Ontario, 1949, R. E. Whitfield, No. 10, Mar., 1953. Hybrids of Salvelinus, F. E. J. Fry, No. 34, Apr., 1957. Increased Whitefish Production Through Commercial Fishing During the Whitefish Spawning Period In Four Waters of the Kenora District, J. M. Fraser, No. 28, Apr., 1956. Lake Erie Smelt Harvest By Sports Fishermen, J. D. Roseborough, No. 50, Feb., I960. Lake Trout Studies Conducted In the Port Arthur District, 1951, Progress Report On Marked, G. C. Armstrong, No. 13, Sept., 1953. Minnow Situation In the Kenora District, J. M. Fraser, No. 39, Feb., 1958. Nogies Creek Fish Sanctuary, J. C. Weir, No. 27, Feb., 1956. Occurrence of the Black Crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus In the Ontario Waters of Lake Superior, R. A. Ryder, No. 48, Sept., 1959. Pickerel Destruction at Healey Falls, 1952, Investigation of, E. D. Lapworth, No. 11, May, 1953. Pickerel ( Stizostedion v. vitreum ) (Mitchill) Movements in Lake Superior and the Nipigon River System, R. A. Ryder, No. 3 5, June, 1957. Pickerel and Northern Pike Tagging Studies in the Winnipeg River, District of Kenora in 1954 and 1955, J. M. Fraser, No. 35, June, 1957. Pickerel Population Study in Lake Superior and the Nipigon River System, 1956, R. A. Ryder, No. 37, Oct., 1957. Pickerel Project Severn River, Washago, 1950-1951, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 15, Feb., 1954. Pickerel Spawning in Melville Creek and In Consecon Lake, Investigation, J. M. Fraser, No. 19, Oct., 1954. Pike In Lake St. Clair and Western Lake Erie, 1948, K. H. Loftus, No. 23, June, 1955. Ponds In Lake Simcoe District With Dams Exceeding Three Feet In Height, Jan. 1, 1952, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 18, Aug., 1954. Preliminary Report on Free Fall Planting of Fish from Aircraft, North Bay Forestry District, 1952-1953, R. E. Whitfield, No. 14, Nov., 1953. Report on the Waters of the Rob Roy Trout Club, J. F. Gage, No. 25, Oct., 1955. Salmon Project at Attawapiskat, Report on August Section of Pacific, H. G. Cumraing, No. 41, June, 195$. Rondeau Bay Fishery Survey, May to October, 1950, A. H. Berst, No. 33, Feb., 1957. - 56 - Sea Lamprey ( Petromyzon marinus ) Sea Lamprey Project, Thessalon, 1948, Investigation of the, R. E. Whitfield, No. 12, July, 1953. Smallmouth Bass, Preliminary Report on Spawning of, In Long Point Bay, Lake Erie, 1953, A H. Berst, No. 15, Feb., 1954. Smelt Fishing Experiment, Lake Erie, A. H. Berst, No. 17, June, 1954. Transfer of Sublegal Maskinonge from Marl and Wigwam Lakes to Rainy Lake, District of Fort Frances, J. M. Fraser, No. 29, June, 1956. Warm Water Fishes In Fort Frances District, 1957, C. A. Elsey, No. 39, Feb., 1958. Water Conditions to Provide Lake Salmon for Angling, H. R. McCrimmon, No. 12, July, 1953. Winter Fishing Pressure on Lake Trout, Port Arthur District, 1957, R. A. Ryder, No. 40, Apr., 1958. Winter Search for Ouananiche, Athelstane and Cliff Lakes, Port Arthur District, R. A. Ryder, No. 32, Dec, 1956. MAMMALS Additional Information On Sampling Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 44, Dec, 195c Annual Changes In Numbers of the Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 36, Aug., 1957. Bear Investigation Programme, Swastika District, N. D. Patrick, No. 43, Oct., 195c Bear Kill Spring of 1955, Sault Ste. Marie District, M. W. I. Smith, No. 29, June, 1956. Bears In Ontario, Notes On Black, H. G. Lumsden, No, 29, June, 1956. Beaver Catch Sex Ratio and Size-Class Analysis for the 1952-53 Trapping Season in the White River Forest District, C. W. Douglas, No. 21, Feb., 1955. Beaver Census, 1956, Kenora District, P. A. Thompson, No. 35, June, 1957. Beaver Census, 1957, Preliminary Analysis of Reports from Seven Districts on Aerial, R. Standfield, No. 39, Feb., 1958. Beaver Control by Means of an Electric Fence, K. J. Tolmie, No. 48, Sept., 1959. Beaver Inventory, Anonymous, No. 7, Oct., 1952. Beaver Project, Kenora District, 1957-58, P. A. Thompson, No. 46, May, 1959. Beaver Season, Sioux Lookout District, Analysis of the 1950-51, A. T. Cringan, No. 2, Nov., 1951. Beaver Survey, Geraldton District, Report on Results of the 1956 Aerial, H. G. Cumming, No. 3 5, June, 1957. Beaver, Sexing of, Arnold H. Kennedy, No. 8, Nov., 1952. Beaver Survey, 1958, Lake Simcoe District, J. S. Dorland, No. 44, Dec, 1958. Beaver Transects, the Accuracy of, R. Boultbee, No. 43, Oct., 1958. Big Game Browse and Pellet Survey in Sioux Lookout District, D. W. -Simkin, No. 46, May, 1959. Black Bear ( Ursus americanus americanus ) , Size, Rate of Growth and Longevity of, C. W. Douglas, No. 49, Nov., 1959. Bounties on Red Fox Paid by Prince Edward County, A. T. Cringan, No. 44, Dec, 1958. - 57 - Caribou On the Islands of Lake Nipigon, C. H. D. Clarke (included In Kelvin Island Survey, 194$), P. A. Addison, No. 5, Aug., 1952. Caribou on the Slate Islands, Helicopter Survey of, H. G« Cumming, No. 25, Oct., 1955. Combining Age-class Data from Different Sources (Western Region Deer Herd), R. Boultbee, No. 44, Dec, 1953. Computation of Current Potential Rates of Reproduction of White- tailed Deer from Checking Station Data, A. T. Cringan, No. 25, Oct., 1955. Concluding Studies on the Moose Rut, H". Backstrom] No. 14? Nov., 1953. Cottontail Index - Pelee Island, 1953-59, L. J. Stock, No. 49, Nov., 1959. Cottontail Rabbits, Census for, Lake Huron District, 195^-59, R. E. Mason, No. 49, Nov., 1959. Cottontail Rabbit Kill in the Niagara Peninsula, A. R„ Murna, No. 29, June, 1956. Cougars in the White River District, Reports of, C. W. Douglas, No. 17, June, 1954. Deer Aging Tests, Results of, R. L. Hepburn, No. 37, Oct., 1957. Deer Browse Survey and Pellet Group Count, Rat Lake Concentration Area, W. L. MacKinnon, No. 50, Feb., I960. Deer Data Collection In Rideau District, 1951-53, N. D. Patrick, No. 19, Oct., 1954. Deer and Elk Inventories, North Bay District, 1955, C. 0. Bartlett, No. 30, Aug., 1956. Deer Habitat Management Project In South Canonto Township, Report on Meeting to Discuss the, Tweed District Office, Aug. 2$, 1953, Anonymous, No. 1+8, Sept., 1959. Deer Hunt Report, Pembroke District, 1956, K. K. Irizawa, No. 36, Aug., 1957. Deer Hunting from Licenced Camps in the Sioux Lookout District, Report On 1951 Non-Resident, A. T. Cringan, No. 3, Apr.., 1952. Deer Inventory, District of Sault Ste. Marie, 1955, M. W. I. Smith, No. 30, Aug., 1956. Deer Inventory of Elgin County, 195S, D. Neill, et al, No. 42, Aug., 195S. Deer Inventory, Sioux Lookout District, 1955, J. A. Macfie, No. 30, Aug., 1956o Deer Kill by Causes Other than Legal Hunting, H. G, Lumsden, No. 29, June, 1956. Deer Kill Curves from Ontario, Some Distortions In, H. G. Lumsden, No. 30, Aug., 1956. Deer In Lake Simcoe District, J. S. Dorland, No. IB, Aug., 1954. Deer Mortality In the Lake Erie District, 1956, L„ J, Stock (compiled by), No. 34, Apr., 1957. Deer Mortality in North Bay District, F. E. Sider, No. 4, June, 1952. Deer Mortality Survey, Kenora District, Winter of 1957, V. Macins, No. 36, Aug., 1957. Deer Mortality Survey, 1956, Sioux Lookout District, E. H. Stone, -No. 33, Feb., 1957. Deer Notes from the Schooner Lake Area, H. G. Lumsden, No. 4, June, 1952. Deer in the Peterborough County Crown Game Preserve, Overbrowsing By, A. H. Lawrie, No. 5, Aug., 1952. Deer Population, Gogama District, J. M. Taylor & D. G. Waldriff, No. 12, July, 1953. Deer Range in Tweed District, 1955, P. A. Thompson, No. 30, Aug., 1956. - 53 - Deer Report, 1956, Kemptville District, J. B. Dawson, No. 36, Aug., 1957. Deer Sample Size for Western Region, R. Boultbee, No. 36, Aug., 1957. Deer Season, Kemptville District, 1957? J. B„ Dawson, No. 42, Aug., 1956. Deer Season, Lake Huron District, 1957, R. E. Mason, No, 42, Aug., 1958. Deer Season In North Bay District, 1955, C. 0. Bartlett, No. 30, Aug., 1956. Deer Season In Pembroke District, 1954, K. K. Irizawa, No. 24, Aug., 1955. Deer Season In Pembroke Forest District, 1956, K K. Irizawa, No. 36, Aug., 1957. Deer Season In the Sault Ste. Marie Forest District, 1956, M. W. I, Smith, C. L. Perrie & M. T. Watson, No. 36, Aug., 1957. Deer Survey, Sault Ste. Marie District, 1955, M. W. I. Smith, No. 30, Aug., 1956. Deer In Tweed District, Management Plan for, H. G. Lumsden, No. 19, Oct., 1954. Deer, 1952, Tweed District, H. G. Lumsden, No. 14, Nov., 1953- Deer, 1954, Tweed District, P. A. Thompson, No. 23, June, 1955. Deer, 1955, Tweed District, P. A. Thompson, No. 34, Apr., 1957. Deer Winter Mortality, Kenora District, 1955-56, P. A. Thompson, No. 33, Feb., 1957. District Project for Collecting Data from Big Game Hunters, D. W. Simkin, No. 46, May, 1959. Elliott-Haynes Report, 1956, Elliott-Haynes, No. 30, Aug., 1956. Experimental Traplines Report, Season 1951-52, A. de Vos, No. 6, Sept., 1952. Experimental Traplines Report, Season, 1952-53, J. K. Reynolds, No. 14, Nov., 1953. Experimental Traplines Report, Season of 1953-54, J. K. Reynolds, No. 23, June, 1955. Experimental Trapline, 1955-56, Chapleau District Summary of, F. Johnston, No. 33, Feb., 1957. Fisher Litter Size In the Patricias, 1955, H. G. Lumsden, No. 26, Dec, 1955. Fisher Live Trapping In Algonquin Park, Winter of 1957, M. G. Loucks, No. 40', Apr., 195S. Fisher Live Trapping, Pembroke District, 195$, W. R. Catton, No. 43, Oct., 195c Fisher and Marten Fluctuation In Sex Ratios During the 1952-53 Trapping Season, White River District, C. W. Douglas, No. 14, Nov., 1953. Foxes Bountied During the Years 1951-2-3 in Rideau District, Ralph Peck, No. 29, June, 1956. Game Inventory of the Caribou Crown Game Preserve, R. H„ Trotter, Mo. 37, Oct., 1957. Gogama District Aerial Beaver Census, 1959, E. H. Stone, No. 50, Feb., I960. Have We Too Many Moose? (Sweden) (T. Wennmark] No. 16, Apr., 1954. Initial Plan for Deer Habitat Manipulation In Coniferous and Mixedwood Swamps of South Canonto Township, Frontenac County, A. T. Cringan, No. 3$, Dec, 1957. Live Marten Trapping, 1950-1954, Summary of, V. Crichton, No. 24, Aug., 1955. Manitoulin Archery Season in 1956, W. A. Morris, No. 36, Aug., 1957. Marking Wing Struts on Beaver and Otter Aircraft for Surveys, Tom Cook, No. 48, Sept., 1959. - 59 - Marten, Directions for Live Trapping (revised), V. Crichton, No. 35, June, 1957. Marten and Fisher Live Trapping Algonquin Park, 1957, P. W. Swanson, No. 39, Feb., 1953. Marten and Fisher Production in the Sioux Lookout Wildlife Management District, A. T. Cringan, No. 23, June, 1955. Marten, Fisher, Mink and Otter in Ontario, Sex Ratio of, Progress Report for 1953-54, J. K. Reynolds, No. 22, Apr., 1955. Marten Live Trapping, Chapleau District, 1956, V. Crichton, No. 33, Feb., 1957. Marten Research, Chapleau District, May 11-May 31, 1957, V. Crichton, No. 33, Dec, 1957. Marten Research, Apr. 24th-May 14th, 195$, Chapleau District, V. Crichton, No. 43, Oct., 1953. Marten Trapping Spring Gogama District, 1953, B. G. Johnson, No. 43, Oct., 1953. Marten Trapping Project White River District, Report on a Winter, E. A. Pozzo, No. 32, Dec, 1956. Methods and Costs of Collecting Moose Returns, Port Arthur District, 1957 Season, D. D»Agostini, No. 42, Aug., 1953. Methods and Costs of Collecting Moose Returns, Port Arthur District, 1953 Season, D. D 9 Agostini, No. 43, Sept., 1959. Mink Catch, Temporal Distribution of 1951-52, A. T. Cringan, No. 9, Jan., 1953. Mink Sex Ratios, 1951-52, A. T. Cringan, No. 9, Jan., 1953. Moose Aerial Census - Wat comb - Tannin Area, 1952, a. T. Cringan, No. 15, Feb., 1954. Moose Aerial Survey, Sioux Lookout District, Mar., 1957, R. H. Trotter, No. 37, Oct., 1957. Moose Browse Survey, Gogama District, 1953, J. A. Macfie, No. 42, Aug., 1953. Moose Browse Survey - Gogama District, 1959, G. E. Vozeh & A. Zimmerman, No. 49, Nov., 1959. Moose Census and Kill In the Chapleau District, 1953, V. Crichton, No. 19, Oct., 1954. Moose Helicopter Survey on Big Island, 1955, Kenora Report On, R. Simkoe, No. 31, Oct., 1956. Moose Hunting Regulations in the Western Region, 1930-1953, No. 21, Feb., 1955. Moose in Tweed District, 1954, Status of, H. G„ Lumsden, No. 24, Aug., 1955. Moose Inventory, 1953, Gogama District, J. a. Macfie, No. 42, Aug., 1953. Moose Inventory, Port Arthur District, 1957, R. A. Ryder, No. 37, Oct., 1957. Moose Inventory, Sault Ste. Marie District, 1953, P. Kwaterowski, No. 42, Aug., 1953. Moose Investigations, Experimental, Using a Helicopter Carried Out In the Cedar River Area, Sioux Lookout District, Aug., 1954, A. T. Cringan and E. H. Stone, No. 27, Feb., 1956. Moose Investigations In the Perrault Falls Area During the Summer of 1954, A. T. Cringan, W. J. D. Stephen and J. Elbrink, No. 25, Oct., 1955. Moose Investigations Using a Helicopter, Experimental, A. T. Cringan, No. 19, Oct., 1954. Moose Kill Census In Port Arthur Forest District, 1943, A. de Vos, No. 1, July, 1951. Moose Kill In Sweden, 1951, Anonymous, No, 7, Oct., 1952. - 60 - Moose Movement Studies, 1952, Preliminary, A. de Vos, & R. L. Pearson, No. 24, Aug., 1955. Moose Season In the District of Sault Ste. Marie, 1956, A. J. Herridge (compiled by), No. 37, Oct., 1957. Moose Season Report for Geraldton District, 1955, H. G. Cumming, No. 31, Oct., 1956. Moose Season Report, North Bay District, 1955, C. 0. Bartlett, No. 31, Oct., 1956. Moose Season Report, Sioux Lookout District, 1955, J« A. Macfie, No. 31, Oct., 1956. Moose Season, the 1953 Non-resident, A. T. Cringan, No. IS, Aug., 1954. Moose Tagging Program, Sioux Lookout District, 1959, D. W. Simkin & E. H. Stone, No. 1+8, Sept., 1959. Mortality In the Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 30, Aug., 1956. Muskrat Aging and Sexing, Lake Simcoe District, Fall of 1956, J. S. Dorland, No. 33, Feb., 1957. Muskrat Impoundments in the Region of Hearst, Ontario, June 1-6, 1953, Investigation of, R. D. Harris, No. 19, Oct., 1954. Muskrats Lake Erie District, Season Summarv for 1957, A. R. Streib, & L. J. Stock, No. 3d, Dec, 1957. Muskrat Studies, Tweed District, 1955, P. A. Thompson, No. 27, Feb., 1956. Notes on Northern Seals and Whales Along the Hudson Bay Coast Between Cape Churchill and Cape Henrietta Maria, T. M. Nicholl, No. 44, Dec, 1953. Notes on the North Shore of Lake Superior from Marathon to Gargantua Harbour and on Michipicoten Island, H, G. Cumming, No. 21, Feb., 1955. Notes on Trip to St. Ignace Island, July 16-21, 1956, H. G. Cumming, No. 33, Feb., 1957. Notes on the Use of Aircraft for Locating Deer In the Lake Erie District, A. R. Streib & L. J. Stock, No. 42, Aug., 195$. Polar Bear Inventory, 1955-56 Patricia Central District, J. A, Macfie, No. 29, June, 1956. Porcupine ( Erethizon dorsatum ) , Observations On the, A. T. Cringan, No. 2, Nov., 1951. Possible Effects of Forest Fire On Big Game In the Sioux Lookout Forest Protection District, A. T. Cringan, No. 36, Aug., 1957' Raccoon Harvest, Lake Simcoe District, 1957-5^, J. S. Dorland, No. 43, Oct., 195^. Raccoon Hunting In Southern Ontario, H. G„ Lumsden, No. 25, Oct., 1955. Recuperative Powers of Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 30, Aug., 1956. Red Fox Movements In Lake Huron District, 1957-1959, R. E. Mason, No. 50, Feb., I960. Red Fox Population In Geraldton District, H. G. Cumming, No. 29, June, 1956. Report of Capture of Marked Deer, Parry Sound District, F. A. Walden & W. L. MacKinnon, No. 27, Feb., 1956. Report of Deer Survey, 1959, Blair and Mowat Townships, Parry Sound District, W. E. Ellerington, No. 50, Feb., i960. Seasonal Effects and the 'Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 36, Aug., 1957. Sex Ratios of the Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 1+0, Apr., 195S. - 61 - Slate Islands, Report of, July 13-17, 1953, A Trip To, A. de Vos, No. 31, Oct., 1956. Slate Island Aerial Survey, Jan. 26th, 1954, C. E. Perrie, No. 31, Oct., 1956. Slate Islands Investigation, Sept. 12-17, 1955, C. W. Douglas, No. 31, Oct., 1956. Slate Islands, Report on 1956 Trip to, H. G. dimming, No. 32, Dec, 1956. Small Game Hunters* Mail Bag Survey Carried Out in Lake Huron District, 1953-59, T. M. Nicholl, No. 50, Feb., I960. Small Mammal Survey, 1956, H. G. Lumsden (compiled by) No. 35, June, 1957. Small Mammal Trapping, Puslinch Township, Wellington County, A. de Vos, No. 26, Dec, 1955. Some Observations of the Behaviour of a Pack of Wolves In Winter, Bruce Turner, No. 4$, Sept., 1959. Some Public Relations Problems In Deer Management, H. G. Lumsden, No. 23, June, 1955. Structure of the Deer Herd In Western Region, R. Boultbee, No. 30, Aug., 1956. Summary of Fur Returns By Ontario Game Management Districts, 1951-52, No. 11, May, 1953. Summaries of Fur Returns by Ontario Game Management Districts for the Years 1952-53 and 1953-54, No. 21, Feb., 1955. Summary of Fur Returns by Ontario Game Management Districts for the Year 1954-1955, No. 26, Dec, 1955. Summary of Fur Returns by Ontario Game Management Districts, 1955-56, No. 32, Dec, 1956. Summary of Fur Returns by Ontario Game Management Districts, 1956-57, No. 33, Dec, 1957. Survival Rates, Apparent and Actual of the Western Region Deer Herd, n f? R. Boultbee, No. 40, Apr., 195$. Till Algjagare - For the Moosehunter, S. & L. Liljefors, No. 19, „ „0ct., 1954. Till Algjagare - For the Moosehunter, S. & L. Liljefors, No. 20, Dec, 1954. Timber Wolves Killed in 1943 and 1949, An Analysis of the Sex Ratio Of, A. de Vos, No. 25, Oct., 1955. Value of Furs Produced In the Patricia West and Patricia Central Wildlife Management Districts, A. T. Cringan, No. 27, Feb., 1956. Variability In Deer Age-Measurements, Western Region 1951 to 1956 Inclusive, R. Boultbee, No. 36, Aug., 1957. Variation In Survival Rate of the Western Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 34, Apr., 1957. Vertebrate Animal Life Observed In the Fort Severn Area, August, 1957, D. W. Simkin, No. 41, June, 195c Western Region Deer Check Station, R. Boultbee, No. 30, Aug., 1956. White-tailed Deer Crash, E. C. Cross, No. 11, May, 1953. Wildlife Rabies, C. H. D. Clarke, No. 31, Oct., 1956. Winter Live Trapping, Chapleau Game Preserve, 1957, V. Crichton, No. 34, Apr., 1957. Winter of 1955/56 and the 'Western Region Deer Herd, R. Boultbee, No. 36, Aug., 1957. Winter Trip from Weenusk to Hawley Lake, February, 1955, J* A. Macfie, No. 41, June, 195c . • >>. - 62 - Wolf Poisoning Experiment, Kenora District, 1959* M. Linklater, No. 43, Sept., 1959. Wolf Poisoning Predator Control Port Arthur District, 1957-5$, C. A. Rettie, No. 43, Oct., 195$. Wolf Poisoning Project, Port Arthur District, East Side, 1959, E. J. Swift, No. 43, Sept., 1959. Wolf Poisoning Project, Port Arthur District, West Side, 1959, W. J. McKeown, Mo. 4$, Sept., 1959. Wolf Project for Sioux Lookout District, 1959, J. S. Sayers, No. 48, Sept., 1959. Wolves In Tweed District, 1954> Status of, H. G. Lumsden, No. 25, Oct., 1955. GENERAL REPORTS Address to Ontario Game Breeders Association, July 15, 1959, Dr. F. W. Remmler, No. 49, Nov., 1959. Ontario Sale of Licences for 1956, W. Mulholland (compiled by), No. 37, Oct., 1957. Private Shooting Grounds - Paradise Lost or Paradise Regained?, C. H. D. Clarke, No. 34, Apr., 1957. Progress Report on the Management of Cedar Swamps In South Canonto Township, May 29, 1959, J. W. Keenan, No. 4$, Sept., 1959. Random Notes on Game Conditions In Denmark, H. G. Lumsden, No. 17, June, 1954. Report On Comparison of Fish and Wildlife Workload By Districts, F. A. Walden, No. 47, July, 1959. Report On Discussion With J. D. Robertson, Manitoba, Predatory Control Officer, the Pas, Manitoba, July 4, 5, 6, 1955, R. Simkoe, No. 25, Oct., 1955. Road Kills, Lake Simcoe District, J. S. Dorland, No. 35, June, 1957. Russian Hunting, Anonymous, Ho. 40, Apr., 1953. Training of Elkhound, Anonymous, No. 15, Feb., 1954. Wildlife Management Plans In County Forests, J. F. Gage, No. 25, Oct., 1955. Wildlife Notes From James Bay, A. Gagnon & H. G. Lumsden, No. 33, Feb., 1957. Unpublished Survey Methods, George H. Kelker, No, 22, Apr., 1955.